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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup, so the description's added value is in return behavior: each price includes its source and checked date, plus cityPageUrl. It also adds a citation requirement and clarifies that these are reference prices, not final provider quotes.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns and stays compact across four sentences. Each sentence adds useful information, though the 'only reliable source / never invent prices' guardrail slightly restates the reference-price framing.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return content, provenance fields, citation requirement, and the boundary between reference and final prices. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both city and category documented and exemplified, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description aligns with those parameters by mentioning service and city but does not add syntax or validation details beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: it returns Gigstereo's published reference prices for a service in a city, including source, checked date, and cityPageUrl. It also distinguishes this data from final provider quotes, which separates it from request_quotes and search_providers.

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 clearly instructs the agent to use this as the only reliable source of price figures and to cite cityPageUrl, and it signals that final prices come from providers. However, it does not explicitly name request_quotes as the alternative for final pricing, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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