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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already provided by annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it clarifies the tool merely lists packages, distinguishes free vs. paid offerings, and notes that outputs are localized and authoritative. This is consistent with a safe, read-only menu operation.

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 economically written: one sentence lists exactly what the tool returns, and a second sentence states the intended use cases. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema is present, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple list/read tool with one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does, what content it returns, and when to use it. Nothing material is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single 'language' parameter already has an enum and a clear description. The tool description adds context about 'translated names' and 'localized links,' which implies language affects output, but it does not need to explain parameter mechanics further.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and precisely identifies the resource: the free indicative valuation entry point plus four paid fixed-scope advisory packages. It also enumerates the kind of information returned (prices, translated names, deliverables, limitations, links), which clearly differentiates it from advisory recommendation or assessment siblings.

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 gives explicit use-case guidance: 'Use for questions about price, free valuation, valuation review, buyer/investor longlists, teaser/IM or full deal preparation.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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