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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: the price depends on two practice attributes and the response includes a breakdown and the pricing rule. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no redundant content. The first sentence defines what the tool computes and returns; the second provides a clear usage directive.

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 read-only pricing calculator with an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and the nature of the response. It does not mention caveats such as regional pricing or data freshness, but those are not clearly required given the tool's narrow scope.

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 0%, but the description names both inputs: 'number of locations and monthly paying patients,' which maps directly to locations and monthlyPayingPatients. It adds domain meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not clarify units or edge-case semantics.

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 the tool quotes the monthly Tabflows price based on locations and monthly paying patients, and that it returns a breakdown and pricing rule. It distinguishes the tool from quoting prices from memory or other pages, but it does not contrast against a specific sibling tool, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 second sentence gives explicit guidance: always use this tool rather than quoting prices from memory or other pages. This establishes a clear context for use, though it does not address when to use related tools such as dpc_break_even or dpc_startup_cost instead.

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