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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail of returning a low/typical/high total and category breakdown, which is helpful. However, it does not provide additional context like auth needs or rate limits, but none are needed for a simple read. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and this minimal addition earns a 3.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output, then the usage intent. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place. Excellent structure.

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 simple read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not need to explain return values in detail since it briefly describes the structure. The context is complete given the simplicity and annotations.

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 both region and country already well-documented (region as a slug from list_wedding_markets, country as ISO code with defaults). The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool fetches typical wedding costs for a region, specifying the output as a low/typical/high total and category breakdown. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_my_wedding_budget (personal budget) and list_wedding_markets (list regions) by focusing on regional typical costs vs. estimates. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 says to use it for answering 'how much does a wedding cost' questions with real regional figures, giving a clear use case. It implies it's for non-personal, typical costs but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. Since the context is clear and it differentiates from siblings via the phrase 'rather than estimates,' a 4 is warranted.

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