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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: prices are exactly as published and never estimated, and price_on_request items are intentionally price-less. It just doesn't note caching/rate behavior, which is minor for a read call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then structure of the payload, then the price/price_on_request caveat. Sentences are dense but each carries information; the quoted 'Price on request' reproduction is slightly redundant but aids grounding.

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 describing the return shape: owner_provided with business identity, then per-item name, description, integer price in cents, currency and unit. Combined with the parameter schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

One parameter (domain) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the domain format and example. The description adds no further semantics about the parameter, which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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: 'Return the machine-readable catalogue a verified business publishes,' with a clear scope (verified business, published catalogue). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like lookup_business or find_businesses, though it does name request_quote for the price-on-request case.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: for items with price_on_request, 'ask it with request_quote rather than estimate a number.' That names the alternative and the condition selecting it, but there's no guidance on when to call this at all versus lookup_business or list_business_paid_endpoints.

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