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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: values come back verbatim as published strings such as "$2.75" and nothing is summed or normalized, which tells the agent not to expect parsed numerics or totals — a real gotcha for downstream use.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the scope claim, then enumerates the returned sections in a compact list. It is dense but every clause maps to a distinct piece of returned content, with no filler or restatement of the title.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage and an output schema present, the description supplies everything left over: what sections appear in the response and the string format of the values. Nothing needed to call it or interpret results is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. It correctly implies a parameterless, whole-catalog read rather than suggesting any filtering options.

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?

It names a specific resource (every published price) and enumerates exactly what is covered: washer price per cycle by size, dryer price and minutes, the cost-per-load table with the site's home-load comparison, and the cost FAQs. That enumeration lets an agent separate it from siblings like get_cycle_times or get_machines without opening a schema.

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 opening claim of completeness ("Every price TF Handy Wash publishes") tells an agent this is the single source for pricing and that no filtering is needed. It does not explicitly exclude or route to alternatives, and it does not note the overlap with get_cycle_times on dryer minutes per cycle, so the routing guidance stops short of full explicitness.

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