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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining the internal logic: cost-plus as the floor, value-based as the ceiling, leading to a recommended range plus strategy name and reason. It does not describe side effects or assumptions, but for a non-mutating recommend tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys the full purpose, method, and output shape using arrows, with no filler. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

The tool is relatively simple, the input schema is fully self-describing, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. The description covers the methodology and deliverable. The main completeness gap is the absence of any guidance about when to choose this tool over its siblings, but that is a usage concern rather than a contextual gap in calling it correctly.

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. The description adds meaningful semantics by mapping cost to the cost-plus floor and competitor_price to the value-based ceiling, which clarifies how the two required parameters are used together. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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, '推荐定价策略' (recommend pricing strategy), for a specific resource, a cross-border product, and outlines the deliverable: a price range, strategy name, and rationale. It is clear and not tautological, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools competitive_price_positioning or price_psychology_tactics.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when a cross-border product needs a pricing strategy based on cost and competitor price, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus the sibling tools. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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