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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine domain detail (null price means that speed requires a 5G network) but nothing about ordering, coverage, or limits.

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?

Two sentences that front-load what is returned and then state the use case. Dense but no filler; the parenthetical null rule is the only slightly tucked-away detail.

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 carries the weight of explaining the return shape, which it does partially (networks, Flats, per-speed prices, null convention). The undefined concept of a 'Flat' and its relationship to a network remains ambiguous for a closed-world read tool.

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 all five parameters are self-documented and the baseline is 3. The description only loosely ties to parameters ('price for every speed for the given days') without adding syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

The description specifies the resource (networks of one country plus the Flats built from them) and what each Flat carries (included networks, price per speed). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like quote_flat or price_grid, and the jargon 'Flat' is left undefined.

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 offers one usage hint — 'Use to explain the choice between networks and speeds' — which implies a comparison/explanation context. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative among siblings (quote_flat, price_grid), leaving the agent to infer selection.

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