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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context — prices are in EUR and include VAT — which an agent could not get from the schema, but it says nothing about return format, completeness of the list, or that it is a non-mutating lookup (only implied by the 'get_' name).

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 with no filler, and the scope is front-loaded. It reads as a label rather than a full sentence, which is efficient but slightly telegraphic.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and pricing units. It does not describe what a result entry looks like (item name, price, category), which would help an agent use the output without a schema.

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 both lang and query are already documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning about filtering behavior or language fallback, so the baseline of 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 the resource (Pesupanda price list) and enumerates the service categories it covers (dry cleaning, laundry, ironing, carpets, courier), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_business_info or get_faq. It lacks a direct verb phrase and makes no explicit sibling comparison, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_business_info, nor any guidance on using the query filter or the language option. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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