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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds behavioral context by stating it returns a link to the country's published price list and prices in the local currency. It also clarifies that planning tools, website publishing, and vendor enquiries are free, which is useful for understanding pricing behavior beyond the annotations.

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 plus a free line, with the main purpose front-loaded: 'Get what Wedyesday itself costs in a country.' Every sentence contributes value—purpose, usage, and a clarification of free features. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned (local currency pricing and a link), what is free, and when to use it. The only minor gap is the exact response format (e.g., a number, a link, or both), but the mention of 'link' and 'currency' gives a good picture. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%: the country parameter is fully described with ISO codes, defaults, and meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific details, just contextual behavior. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly identifies the resource (Wedyesday's own pricing) and its scope: per-country pricing for wedding-website add-ons and vendor plans, in local currency, with a link to the published price list. It also distinguishes itself from currency conversion, making the purpose unambiguous. This separates it from sibling tools like get_wedding_cost_guide, which likely address broader wedding costs.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool to answer 'how much does Wedyesday cost' instead of converting currencies, which is a clear when-to-use directive. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the context implies it's specifically for Wedyesday's pricing rather than overall wedding costs, providing sufficient guidance for selection.

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