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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world computation, so the description's job is to add substance — which it does by disclosing the estimate fallback for missing current prices, the 200 kg minimum, and the pricing tiers used in the calculation. It does not, however, explain any currency, tax, or validity-period assumptions behind those prices.

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 purpose and pricing are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by input requirements and then the return value. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; only the parenthetical price list makes the opening sentence long and slightly hard to scan.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested cuts object and no output schema, the description covers what the caller must supply, what happens when optional data is missing, and what comes back (monthly and annual savings, re-balanced mix, pre-filled report link). Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the per-kg price for each level, the 200 kg minimum order, and the explicit either/or relationship between the cuts object and premium_kg/secondary_kg. The 'estimates must be presented as estimates' rule for current prices also clarifies the semantics of those optional fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource — comparing a Maldives buyer's monthly beef cost three ways (current spend, individual cuts from Unan Trading, FullSet blended price) — and enumerates the exact price tiers (Custom US$24, Cross Wagyu US$31, Pure Wagyu US$37/kg, 200 kg minimum). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like list_brazil_export_offers or request_quotation.

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 clearly frames the use case and the required inputs (monthly kg per cut via cuts, or premium_kg/secondary_kg, plus level, ideally current prices per kg). It also states a fallback rule when current prices are absent (market estimates used, must be presented as estimates). It stops short of explicitly naming when to route to a sibling such as request_quotation instead.

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