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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: discounts are excluded, the ordering price is the binding one, the surchargeTable allows option comparison without a second call, and the attribution link must be cited as the source.

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 core return value is front-loaded and the paragraph earns most of its length given six parameters and multi-component pricing. The dense em-dash product/option lists cost some readability and could be trimmed against the schema's own enumerations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still names the key fields (price.totalPrice, surchargeTable) and the attribution link. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including the per-flat coupling between propertyType and totalFlatsCount. The description restates the product and add-on options but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Returns AfAMax's current list price in EUR ... for one product') and enumerates the exact product identifiers it covers. It explicitly scopes itself to quoting prices, which separates it from calculate_property_depreciation and the booking siblings.

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?

Contains an explicit when-not ('This tool only quotes prices: to estimate whether a Restnutzungsdauergutachten would pay off, use calculate_property_depreciation') naming the correct alternative. It also tells the agent what to do with the result ('say so when quoting') and that discount codes do not apply.

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