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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (which providers, which effective dates, that renewal rules and stay-vs-switch guidance are included) but does not describe output shape or how results are ordered/limited.

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?

Front-loaded with the providers and effective dates, then closes with the actionable next step. The parenthetical date lists make the opening sentence dense, but nothing is redundant filler.

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, the description should carry more of the return-value burden; it hints that SKU ids are returned and mentions renewal rules and stay-vs-switch content, but never describes the result structure or optionality of the two params (0 required). Adequate but incomplete.

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 50%: the 'sku' parameter is documented with examples and 'provider' has an enum, so the schema does most of the work. The description reinforces that results are keyed by SKU and enumerates the two providers, which mildly adds meaning but no format or defaulting detail.

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 names the specific resource (2026 provider price changes by SKU), the covered providers (Hetzner, OVHcloud) and the exact effective dates, which is far more concrete than the opaque tool name 'audit_...'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_server_price_index, but the scope is clear enough to select it.

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 gives one routing instruction — use the returned SKU ids with calculate_36_month_tco — which is genuinely useful follow-up guidance. However, it never says when to use this tool versus get_server_price_index or request_blind_counter_quotes, so usage is only implied.

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