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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read with no destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: prices come from Well Told's live store prices, the response includes a quote card, and the buyer can continue to welltolddesign.com. It stops short of explaining pricing staleness or failure behavior when a design or product cannot be priced.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states what is priced before listing outputs. The output list is dense but each item is informative, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned quote values, and it covers the core required parameter and the design/product choice. It is slightly incomplete on in_hand_date and budget_per_unit semantics, but for a read-only pricing tool the definition gives an agent enough to call it 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 coverage is only 20%, so the description must carry more parameter meaning than it does. It distinguishes design_id from product_id and ties quantity to pricing and budget_per_unit to a budget check, but it never explains in_hand_date or the relationship between quantity and budget_per_unit. The meaning added is helpful but does not fully compensate for the low 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 uses the specific verb 'Prices' and names the two resources it prices, design_id or product_id, at a quantity from live store prices. It then enumerates the exact outputs (unit price, setup fees, shipping, total, lead time, dates, budget check, sample price), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to call it: to price a design or product at a quantity. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like get_design_status or create_checkout, nor any exclusions or prerequisites for calling it.

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