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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does add that results include pricing and a recommended alternative tool, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about failure modes such as an unknown or unpublished name.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The middle clause enumerating price/parameters/returns is slightly redundant against the existing output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to explain return values; the only parameter is fully documented. What remains thin is the relationship to sibling tools like search_capabilities and list_domains, which an agent choosing between them would want spelled out.

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% and the single `name` parameter is documented as "The published name of the tool to describe." The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented schema applies.

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?

"Show one tool in full" gives a concrete verb (show/describe) and a concrete resource (a single tool definition), and the enumeration of price, parameters and return values clarifies scope. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_capabilities, so the reader must infer that this is the single-item lookup versus the bulk search.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "one tool" suggests the caller already knows which tool they want, and the mention of a sibling "when you are after something else" gestures at alternatives without naming them. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_capabilities or when-not guidance.

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