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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so basic safety is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing the pricing logic (desks vs people, free field logins, only office seats billed) and reassuring that the price is 'from the same catalogue the checkout bills from'. This explains what the tool does behind the scenes without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first phrase ('The honest monthly price for a specific crew'), followed by a compact explanation of the pricing model. There is no fluff; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope and inputs.

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 read-only pricing tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the pricing model and the meaning of both inputs. It doesn't describe the return format, but that is not critical given the simplicity and the read-only nature; the description gives enough for an agent to call 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% with each parameter clearly described ('Total people on the crew...' and 'How many of them need the office side...'). The description simply restates the relationship ('Pass the crew size and how many of them work the office side') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'the honest monthly price for a specific crew', identifying the verb (price/pricing) and resource (crew). It also differentiates from all siblings by tying to the checkout catalogue, and none of the sibling tools (feature requests, forum, knowledge base) offer pricing, so there is no confusion.

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 provides valuable context on when to use this tool: to get the actual price charged at checkout, with the key distinction that 'field crew get free logins; only office/admin seats bill'. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the unique pricing model is effectively a usage guideline, and no sibling provides pricing. It implies 'use this for accurate pricing' without saying so directly.

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