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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: it discloses the returned fields per row (price, duration where recorded, last edit time) and the surprising omission of treatment names, which an agent would otherwise have to learn from the output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, followed by the return contract and the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the name, title or schema.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't spell out return shapes, and it still summarizes them briefly. Combined with the annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination behavior (covered in the schema) is left to structured fields.

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 100%, with limit, cursor and clinicId all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints beyond the phrase 'per catalog row', which only loosely gestures at pagination.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('prices set in their vet clinic's treatment and service catalog') and pins the scope further by naming the aggregate questions it answers (lowest, highest, most recently changed). It also carves out what it is not ('the price of a specific named treatment'), so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

'Use this when someone asks about the prices set in their vet clinic's treatment and service catalog' gives an explicit trigger, and the closing sentence gives an explicit exclusion ('Not for the price of a specific named treatment'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present, so no inference is required.

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