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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: prices exclude VAT, cover both new and renewal registrations, multiple terms, and the optional fully assisted service, plus a pointer to the quote tools for VAT-inclusive totals. It does not mention auth or caching, but for a static price list those omissions are minor.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, using semicolons and lists to pack in precise scope without filler. The second sentence efficiently handles the alternative-tool routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 and zero parameters, the description still describes the return fields ('pricePerYear' and 'total') and the VAT exclusion, and clarifies the domain (new registration vs renewal, 1/3/5 years, assisted service). Nothing needed to call this tool correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description neither needs to nor does document any parameters, and it introduces no ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Global FinReg's LEI prices'), then enumerates the exact scope: every supported currency, excluding VAT, for new registration and renewal, across 1/3/5-year terms, with pricePerYear and total. It also distinguishes itself from get_registration_quote and get_renewal_quote, so an agent can tell it apart from any sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: 'For the exact total for one LEI, including VAT, use get_registration_quote or get_renewal_quote.' That gives a clear when-not condition and names the correct tools, leaving no inference needed.

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