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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by describing the return structure (low/typical/high totals and category breakdown), which is beyond annotations. It doesn't discuss data source or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 zero filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and the output detail, then adds usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation with two optional parameters and no required fields. The description explains the output format, and the schema covers parameter semantics. Annotations provide the safety profile. No essential information for an agent to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both region and country are fully documented. The description mentions 'region' in the opening but adds no new parameter detail; the schema already explains the slug format, optionality, and default country. The description does not compensate for any gap, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('typical wedding costs'), and defines the output scope (low/typical/high total plus category breakdown). It also differentiates from siblings like get_my_wedding_budget (personal budget) and list_wedding_markets (market list) by focusing on regional figures.

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool: to answer 'how much does a wedding cost' questions with real regional figures. It implies a distinction from estimates and from personal budget tools, but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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