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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the returned field set (name, description, price, cost, category), which is useful because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, total volume, or when a cursor is exhausted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the actionable downstream instruction. The first sentence is a fragment, but it carries dense information without filler.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. Pagination behavior across calls is the main omission, but for a simple read-only list tool the definition is nearly complete.

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% — kind's enum and default, limit's 1-100 range and default, cursor's provenance, and search's scope are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how search interacts with kind, or whether cursor must be paired with the same filters), so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the company's price book) and enumerates what each entry carries (price, cost, category), so an agent knows this is a read that returns catalog line-item data. It does not use an explicit listing verb, but 'Services or materials of the company's price book' identifies the content well enough to separate it from list_customers/list_jobs and other sibling listers.

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 gives concrete downstream context: use the returned name, description and price as line items in create_job or create_estimate, which tells the agent when this tool is the right precursor. It does not state exclusions or name an alternative source of pricing data, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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