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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares the tool returns no Sinh Vũ numbers, not even a range, which prevents the agent from treating output as a quote. It stops short of describing output shape, caching, or update cadence.

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 what the tool returns, then the boundary condition about Sinh Vũ pricing. Two sentences, both earning their place, though the second is dense and could be split for readability.

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 one-param, read-oriented lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the critical limitation on returned data. It leaves output structure unspecified, but the key anti-misuse information is present.

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% for the single optional 'hang_muc' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description corroborates the category-group concept and gives matching examples (nhận diện, bao bì, website), but adds little 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 states a specific artifact (Vietnam market price framework) and its structure: three supplier tiers per category group, plus upward/downward price drivers and named example groups. It also makes a clear negative claim (Sinh Vũ publishes no figures), which sharpens the tool's identity, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast with.

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 effectively defines when-not: this tool is for market-level reference only, and real investment figures come from a separate proposal after the client supplies information. That routes the agent away from misusing it for quoting, though the alternative tool/workflow isn't named explicitly.

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