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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states a precondition and data source. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether special authorization is needed, or what effects it may have.

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 a single compact line with no filler and front-loads the core resource. The parenthetical '(list · contract · reimbursement)' is slightly cryptic but not wasteful.

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?

Although an output schema exists, an agent still lacks enough context to call this correctly: the meaning of presentation_id, its relationship to decision_id, and the concept of 'the gate' are not explained. For a three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates that decision_id is required. presentation_id and tenant remain unexplained, and the description adds no real meaning beyond the required fields visible in the schema.

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 title supplies the verb 'Get', and the description specifies the resource as the price basis (list, contract, reimbursement) from a licensed party after the gate. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_availability or get_item, though the description is a noun phrase rather than a complete statement of action.

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?

'After the gate (decision_id required)' provides a clear temporal precondition and the required identifier, so an agent knows when this tool applies. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the gate condition is a clear context signal.

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