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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the row limit ('Max 10 rows') and by indicating the response includes source, URL, date, and quote. It does not discuss pagination, but for a simple read tool this is a minor gap.

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 short, information-dense sentences with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core subject and includes the row limit as a separate concise note.

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 optional-filter read tool, the description plus schema covers the returned data fields, the row cap, and the filter semantics. The absence of an output schema makes the explicit field list valuable. It does not address sibling selection, but that gap is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 only parameter, project_type, is fully documented in the schema with its allowed values and omit behavior. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not. 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 clearly identifies the resource as private-market figures and vendor list prices, and specifies the accompanying metadata (source, URL, date, quote). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is still clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as daily_rates, price_statistics, or search_public_contracts. The only usage hint is the optional project_type filter behavior, which is more parameter semantics than tool-selection guidance.

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