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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes further by disclosing what is returned (per-case and per-unit price, currency, code-computed line total, MOQ and stock checks) and, critically, that multiple matching offers produce candidates rather than an auto-pick. That ambiguity-resolution rule is a real behavioral trait an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and inputs, then the outputs, then the edge case, then the hand-off. No filler and nothing redundant with the annotations.

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 14-parameter, zero-required read tool with an output schema, the description conveys the main flow, the identifier requirement, and the multi-match behavior without needing to explain every return field. The empty-required-list wrinkle (at least one identifier is implicitly needed) and the duty/volume filters are left entirely to the 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 coverage is 64%, so several of the 14 parameters (units, pack, abv, volume_ml, duty_status, target_incoterm, target_location) rely solely on the schema. The description reinforces the identifier trio and the case-quantity basis plus the optional target-price comparison, but adds no syntax or selection logic beyond that — adequate, not compensating.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Price one product') plus the accepted identifier forms and quantity basis, so the agent knows exactly what capability this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like price_my_list or get_offer, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 closing instruction 'Once the buyer is happy with a line, offer request_quote' gives a clear next-step condition and effectively names the alternative for the commit phase. There is still no guidance on when to prefer this over price_my_list (bulk pricing) or search_offers, so the routing picture is only half drawn.

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