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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses hard caps (100 lines / 20 KB), the full match-status taxonomy so failures are per-line rather than wholesale, and the non-conversion currency policy for totals. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and cannot get from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 action followed by limits, input formats, return shape and currency rules; every sentence carries information. The enumerated status list overlaps with what the output schema likely already declares, which is the only real slack.

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?

Given an existing output schema, the description need not define return fields, yet it still surfaces the two things that change caller behavior: per-line status semantics and the no-conversion currency rule. Caps and input formats complete the picture for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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?

Explains that `text` accepts one-product-per-line or CSV/TSV with a header, and that `lines` carries product names or EANs, case quantities and optional target prices — meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions. Nested fields like abv, volume_ml, offer_id and target_incoterm are left to the schema, which documents several of them.

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 verb and resource (price a buying list of up to 100 lines) and immediately enumerates accepted input shapes and returned per-line data. An agent can distinguish this bulk-pricing tool from get_price or get_offer without opening any schema.

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 bulk-list context and the choice between pasting text or supplying structured lines are explicit, which gives clear guidance on how to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_price for a single product, request_quote for negotiated pricing), so sibling routing is left to inference.

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