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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost (free), privacy handling (individual submissions never published), and the aggregation rule (medians only at five or more per category). It omits resubmission/overwrite behavior and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition, then the action, then the return, then the privacy caveat. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 an 8-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the incentive and privacy model but leaves the practical mechanics thin: which price fields are expected for which pricing_model, what happens when optional fields are omitted, and what the returned benchmark looks like.

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 only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never explains the required category/pricing_model enums, nor the relationship between unit_price_usd, entry_usd_month, usage_unit, and typical_discount_pct, nor the 'list or a real quote' distinction as it maps to fields.

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: add one AI product's price to the Agent Pricing Index private benchmark. The privateness and the return value (unlocked category benchmark) are explicit, so it is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like pricing_benchmark or pricing_rows. It stops short of naming those siblings directly.

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?

'FREE, give-to-get' and 'Returns the category benchmark it unlocks' imply the use case: contribute a data point in exchange for benchmark visibility. However, it never says when NOT to use this (e.g. use pricing_benchmark to read, pricing_quote_check to validate a quote) or what prerequisites exist before submitting.

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