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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what the tool returns, including a concrete example showing the level of specificity (e.g., '$0.02/call adds $8,400/yr'). It also cites the data source (Stratalize category pricing composite), which is beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the usage case, then summarizes the output, provides a voluminous but illustrative example, and ends with a source attribution. No unnecessary sentences; every part earns its place.

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 simple, read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, output content, and even gives an example of the output style. It lacks details on return format or limitations, but these are not critical given the simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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 input schema has one parameter 'category' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that categories are software categories, with 'CRM' as an example, and clarifies that output is 'by category.' This provides enough context for the parameter, though it could explicitly list allowed values or format.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Returns common pricing models, hidden cost patterns, implementation cost ranges, and budget guidance by category.' It specifies both the resource (software pricing intelligence) and the scope (by category), and the example with CRM hidden costs distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on vendor benchmarks or negotiation.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage context: 'Use when evaluating a new software purchase or reviewing a vendor quote for hidden costs.' This gives a clear when-to-use, but it does not mention when not to use or alternatives, though sibling tool names imply alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusion of other tools.

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