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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that pricing is 'live from the POPS4 catalogue at wholesale' and specifies the return contents (total, per head, tier band, links, confirming person). It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the nature of pricing implies no side effects. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about non-mutating behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by examples and return details. It is efficient with no filler, though the inclusion of the contact person's full name and title could be seen as slightly verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters (2 enums, 1 number), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, provides examples for the board parameter, and lists the output components. It lacks explicit guidance on tier and attendees, and does not explain the output fields (e.g., what 'tier band' means), but these are largely self-explanatory. The description is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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. It adds value for the 'board' parameter by providing examples that map board values to program themes (e.g., mergers -> welcoming the new team). However, it does not explain the semantics of 'tier' (enum) or 'attendees' (number). The description partially bridges the gap but leaves two parameters under-explained.

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 clearly states a specific action (price) applied to a specific resource (program for a filing) and gives concrete examples (mergers -> welcoming the new team; cmo-moves -> a new leader's launch). It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by focusing on pricing rather than data retrieval. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you need to price a program for a filing type) and provides examples that map board values to program types. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling tools are clearly about fetching filing data, so an agent can infer the appropriate context. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, but adequate.

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