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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'Prices are what the business published, not an estimate' clarifies the reliability and origin of the data. It also describes the output shape, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the return payload, the second clarifies price semantics, and the third gives the intended use case. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers the return fields, price semantics, and usage context. It could mention handling of unverified domains or error behavior, but the annotations and schema cover the safety and parameter essentials.

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?

The schema already covers the single 'domain' parameter fully with a description and example. The description does not add new parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage without needing to compensate.

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 ('Return') and names the resource ('machine-readable catalogue a verified business publishes'), and details the item fields. It clearly distinguishes this from reading prices off a website, and the scope ('verified business') sets it apart from sibling tools like lookup_business or list_verified_businesses.

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 clear context: 'Use this to quote a business accurately instead of reading prices off its website.' This states when to use the tool and identifies an alternative (manual website reading). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or list exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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