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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: data is entered by the company's verified owner and never by PestPin, no match does not imply absence of prices, and the exact price requires company confirmation. These are non-obvious behavioral details that help an agent interpret results correctly.

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 longer than a minimal definition but every sentence earns its place: it defines the returned data, explains provenance and no-match semantics, and gives direct usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured clearly, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies all necessary lookup semantics: scope, data source, no-match interpretation, and usage context. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly without missing critical details.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'company' and 'state' parameters clearly. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states, which is acceptable given the full coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it gets a company's published price card as ranges per service, including metadata like last change date and start availability. It also distinguishes itself from generic cost tools by emphasizing that prices are self-published on the company's own PestPin listing by a verified owner. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to answer 'what does <company> charge' without phoning them. It also clarifies that a no-match result is not a statement about the company's prices. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.

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