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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the returned URL responds with HTTP 402 and Payment-Required terms, payment settles directly to the business, failed calls are never charged, and an empty catalog returns an empty list with a note. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary return, then the payment behavior and the empty-result case. No padding or repetition, and the ordering follows the agent's decision path.

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 present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the returned fields (title, what it does, HTTP method, price, URL), explains the 402 payment flow, the no-charge-on-failure guarantee, and the empty-list edge case. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (domain) exists and its schema description already documents it at 100% coverage. The description implies the tool targets a specific business domain but adds no format or validation semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb (return/list) and a well-scoped resource: the priced endpoints a verified business publishes. It is clear this is a read-only enumeration of a business's sellable HTTP endpoints. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling list_business_offerings, so the agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. what 'verified' requires), and no routing to alternatives such as list_business_offerings, lookup_business, or request_quote. The description explains what the tool returns but not when an agent should reach for it over its neighbors.

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