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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that prices are 'live', explains the 402 response for unpaid agent verify calls, and notes that self-pay is rejected. However, it does not explicitly state whether get_pricing itself is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The nature of a pricing getter makes some of this obvious, but not fully explicit.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The main purpose ('Live First Dollar Desk prices') is front-loaded, followed by concise, high-value specifics about pricing tiers and the verify endpoint's behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential domain knowledge: the key price points, the 402 behavior for agents, and the self-pay restriction. It does not specify the return format, but that is a minor gap for a low-complexity getter. The tool is adequately contextualized for an agent 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents everything. The description adds value by explaining the context behind the prices (Stripe checkout, USDC on Base, self-pay rejection), which gives meaning to the data an agent will receive. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 opens with 'Live First Dollar Desk prices', clearly stating the tool's purpose: retrieving current pricing information. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'verify' by focusing on pricing specifics, though it does reference verify's cost structure. The verb is implied ('get'), but the resource is explicit.

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?

The description implies usage by providing pricing context for both human and agent flows, and mentions the verify endpoint's 402 behavior. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this tool when you need current prices' or when to prefer it over verify. The guidance is embedded but not directly stated, leaving some inference to the agent.

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