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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the price schedule, which is real behavioral value, but it never states how tiers are selected from parcel_count (the thresholds that separate Small Portfolio from Landlord Bundle) or whether the appeal addon is per-parcel or flat, which are the details that most affect a correct call.

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?

One well-formed sentence: purpose first, price schedule in a compact parenthetical. No filler. The price list is dense but each entry is information the caller needs to reconcile the output.

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 small, side-effect-free quote tool with full annotation coverage and full schema descriptions, the definition covers what is computed and the price points. It leaves two gaps: the parcel_count tier thresholds and the shape of the response (single total vs. line-item breakdown), which matters because there is no output 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds pricing meaning for is_appeal_addon ($19) and is_contingency ($0), but adds nothing for parcel_count beyond restating its existence, and does not explain the tier boundaries it drives.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Calculate tiered pricing for ... official mailing address changes') plus the jurisdiction (Hamilton County), so an agent knows exactly what is being produced. It does not name any sibling tool or explain how it differs from status/eligibility tools, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-purchase quote step, likely before check_portfolio_address_status or an order flow. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus other tools, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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