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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses the free tier (25 calls/day), the 500-call credit pass and how it is earned, that paid use is not live, that nothing is charged even when want:true is passed, and that outside-tool prices are paid directly to the builder. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the audience ('Buyers:') and the deliverable, then the two pricing branches. Dense but information-rich; every clause carries a distinct fact, though the run-on pricing sentence could be split for scanability.

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, so the description must characterize the return, and it does explain what comes back (price plus how to pay) for both tool categories. The main residual gap is the exact form/shape of the quote and whether max_usd_per_call or calls change the output, but the behavioral picture is otherwise 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%, so 3 is the baseline. The description adds real meaning on top by clarifying the intent behind want:true ('tell us you would pay', counted but not charged), which the schema alone does not convey, and by framing 'tool' as either a Dirtsmith tool or an outside tool name.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the price and payment path for exactly one tool, split into Dirtsmith-owned tools vs outside tools on the price sheet. It gives concrete examples (pdf_tables, Exa) so the agent knows the input shape. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling cost_estimate, which an agent could easily confuse with a quote.

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 by the 'Buyers:' framing and by the instruction to pass want:true to signal willingness to pay, which is actionable context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and the closest sibling (cost_estimate) is never named or contrasted, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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