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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context the annotations can't: this renders a card in the UI, degrades to an upload button when no file exists, and supports re-pricing via `path`. It doesn't say what the card shows or whether pricing is persisted/reusable beyond the `path` hint.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the no-file fallback, then the host-specific and re-pricing cases. No filler, though the parenthetical sourceUrl aside is slightly parenthetical-heavy.

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 13-param, schema-rich, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, the description covers the main flows (new file, no file, re-price). It omits what the resulting card/quote actually contains, which matters since there is no output schema.

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% and the schema already explains `path`, `units` (including the '25x too small' heuristic), `sourceUrl` and the enums. The description repeats the `path` and `sourceUrl` semantics rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies for a fully documented 13-param schema.

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 ('Price the customer's 3D file') and enumerates supported formats. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from price_model_link, whose territory the sourceUrl sentence brushes against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concrete routing: no file → show upload card with sourceUrl; ChatGPT → pass the attached file; existing priced file → pass `path` to change options. It never says when to use price_model_link or make_part instead, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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