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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond them: it discloses the return payload (VAT-excluded and VAT-included totals, delivery days, a pre-filled configurator link). It does not discuss whether add-ons can change delivery days or how the design code affects totals.

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?

A single dense sentence with the calculation scope front-loaded and the return value trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields. For a four-parameter, single-purpose quote tool this is nearly complete, losing only the optional design parameter and any note on how add-ons interact with delivery timing.

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 enums documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates three of the four inputs at a high level but adds no format, default, or interaction semantics, and never mentions the optional 'design' parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Calculate the exact price of a ... corporate website' — and names the concrete inputs (package, add-ons, languages). It also states the calculation source ('same formula as the website configurator'), which separates it from a static price list. It stops short of naming the likely-confusable sibling get_pricing, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for quoting a configured site, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for...' sentence. With a sibling named get_pricing in the same family, the absence of a routing rule is a real gap.

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