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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those hints: the exact return payload (single, couple, group per-examinee tiers) and the deposit policy with currency-specific amounts and refund condition. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool produces.

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 dense sentence front-loads the core purpose, then delivers the important return details and the refund nuance. Every clause carries useful information—no filler, no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 only one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and open-world variability, the description is complete: it explains what results to expect, including the deposit's refundability and exact amounts. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool 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%, with the query parameter already explained as 'A city, state/region, or country, e.g. "Miami", "Texas", "United Kingdom".' The description only says 'for a location,' which adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This is the baseline for well-covered parameters.

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 opens with 'Get polygraph examination pricing for a location,' a specific verb + resource + scope, and then enumerates exactly what is returned (three price tiers plus the booking-fee deposit). This clearly separates it from siblings like find_offices and get_booking_status, which address different concerns.

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 makes clear that this tool is for location-based pricing inquiries, so an agent can confidently select it when pricing is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings or state when not to use it, e.g., no mention that get_service_info covers broader service questions.

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