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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that these values override published prices, but is silent on fallback behavior (what is returned for a model with no custom price) and on scope of what is listed.

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?

A single compact sentence with no waste, and the key differentiator (org-set vs published) is front-loaded. It lacks an explicit action verb, which costs it a point for an agent scanning for 'what does this do'.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and full annotation coverage, the definition needs only to identify the resource and its relationship to published pricing — both are stated. The one remaining gap, what is returned for models without an org price, is minor given the 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 names the resource precisely — organization-set discounts and prices — and contrasts it with published prices, which distinguishes it from a sibling like get_model_price. The verb 'list' comes only from the tool name, not the description, but the resource semantics are unambiguous.

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?

'Used instead of published prices' implies this is the preferred source for contract/discounted rates, giving an implicit when-to-use signal. It never names get_model_price as the alternative for list-price lookups, nor states what happens when no custom price exists, so the routing guidance stays inferential.

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