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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The sentence 'Returns only figures the site already states' adds genuine behavioral context: results are limited to verbatim published figures with no computation or extrapolation, which tells the agent not to treat the output as a quote or estimate.

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 that names the resource first and then enumerates the covered topics, with a closing scope constraint. Every clause maps to content the tool returns; nothing is wasted.

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 no params, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description's main remaining job is telling the agent what comes back, which the enumerated list largely does. It could be slightly more complete by flagging that it applies to a specific site/market or that figures may be static rather than live, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description appropriately spends no words on absent parameters and instead describes the fixed return content.

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 names the resource (published desk terms) and enumerates the specific figures returned: buyer ask price, ten free buyer files, state seat, seller introduction, fleet quoting, and grade meanings. It also states the verb ('Returns only figures the site already states'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_price_band or list_price_bands, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by the enumerated content — an agent can infer it is the reference tool for fee/term definitions rather than a price-band lookup. There is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no sibling is named as an alternative, leaving the agent to reason about the boundary with get_price_band and list_price_bands.

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