Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses important behavior: prices are indicative, carry binding=false, exclude freight/duty/taxes, and the highest quantity band is always a quotation rather than a figure. It also explains that priced-on-request products return no number at all, which meaningfully sets expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but front-loaded, opening with the returned commercial terms and then adding critical caveats about indicativeness and quotation behavior. Every sentence contributes to correct interpretation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the binding, exclusion, and quantity-band caveats. It gives an agent enough context to call the tool and correctly interpret its results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning about quantity by explaining quantity bands and that the highest band is treated as a quotation. It does not add format details beyond the schema, but it does clarify how quantity affects returned pricing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: published commercial terms for one product, including pricing type, currency, MOQ, bands, validity, Incoterms, and lead time. It also clearly distinguishes indicative pricing from a quotation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool create_quote_request for binding quotes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context by framing the result as indicative pricing and warning that most products are priced on request and return no number. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus creating a quote request, but the indicative-versus-quotation distinction supplies practical guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.