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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the response contains no prices and pricing is never transacted through the assistant. It doesn't say what the explanation actually covers (factors, process, ranges), leaving the returned content partly opaque.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the two constraints (no figures, human scoping) follow in priority order.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it safely and set expectations about the response. A brief note on what the explanation does contain would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing the tool as a pure explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Explains how Portaur prices its work") and immediately narrows expectations by noting it returns no figures. It implicitly separates itself from ask_portaur and contact_options, but never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is by negation rather than direct routing.

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?

"It returns no figures" plus "every project is scoped with a person" gives a clear when-not condition: don't call this expecting a quote. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should use to actually request a quote or a callback.

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