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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral nuances: the From price is the ladder's lowest unit price reached at volume, not at MOQ; prices are AUD ex-GST; the price ex-cludes GST; unit price steps down with quantity. It also explains the MOQ/fromPrice object relationship. The only missing pieces are rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only pricing look-up these are not central.

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 long-bodied but every sentence carries purpose: the beginning states the core, the middle clarifies pricing semantics, and the end gives use-case directives. The list of category examples is verbose but aids intent recognition. Not ideal in compactness but not redundant.

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 single-parameter, output-free schema tool, the description tells the agent what data it returns (`moq`, `fromPriceAud`), the scale of data (100+), the price semantics, and the typical usage flow. It is complete enough to call correctly without further expectations.

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 schema already documents `locale` with its alternatives and effect ('gates AU-only offers'). The description does not add any information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb–resource pairing: 'Entry (From) prices' for promotional product categories, and lists many concrete examples. It also distinguishes the tool from get_quote by saying 'then get_quote for an exact quantity' and frames it as the first step for price queries.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this FIRST for...') and names the alternative ('then get_quote for an exact quantity'), covering both the appropriate trigger and the overflow into another tool.

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