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

Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond them: the number is authoritative (same engine as checkout) and excludes tax, which Stripe adds later. It does not say whether a quote can change between calls, but the price-composition context is real added value.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and the tax caveat follows naturally. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 one-parameter read-with-side-effects tool with no output schema, the description explains what the number means but leaves the handle's provenance and any quote-validity window unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description never mentions job_handle or where its value comes from. With schema coverage at 0% for the single required parameter, the description had to compensate and does not, leaving the agent to infer that the handle comes from hip_create_job.

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 and resource: the exact price for a job, tied to the same pricing engine the website checkout uses. An agent can distinguish it from hip_get_order or hip_get_checkout_status by the pricing framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. It is implied you call this to learn the amount before hip_prepare_payment or hip_complete_payment, but the description never says so or states prerequisites such as needing an existing job_handle.

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