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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: never guess a number not supplied, the result lists what is still missing, competitor figures come from the vendor's own pricing page with the page and read-date named, and the result must be reported as-is even when ShearQuery loses. These are provenance, freshness and reporting obligations that go well beyond the structured hints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, usage in the second, and behavioral rules follow. Density is high and nearly every sentence earns its place, though the final block is long enough to be slightly heavy for a single-paragraph description.

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, the description compensates by stating what the result contains (missing inputs, the source page and read date) and how to present it. Combined with the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and report 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, but the description adds real meaning: it tells the agent to elicit app, monthly bill, charged new-clients-per-month, and first-visit price conversationally before calling, and clarifies why monthly_fee overrides published pricing. Slightly under-referenced relative to all 7 params, hence 4 not 5.

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?

Sentence one gives a specific verb (work out / set beside) with a defined resource (monthly cost paid to Booksy/theCut/Mindbody vs. ShearQuery's price) and explicitly bounds the audience (barber, stylist, shop, salon). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compare_barbershops_salons or what_shearquery_does.

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?

Explicit triggers are given: when someone asks what they would save, mentions fees/commission on their booking app, or asks how ShearQuery's price compares. No when-not conditions or named alternative tools are offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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