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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is telling the agent prices carry provenance and a verification timestamp—i.e., data can be dated and should be attributed. That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss what happens when no pricing exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the purpose and the provenance fields are front-loaded ahead of the quoting instruction.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is minor: the meaning/format of slug and behavior on missing pricing are left unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (slug) with 0% schema description coverage; the description implies the slug identifies a tool but never states the accepted format or whether it matches get_tool's identifier. The gap is small given the single parameter, but the description does not fully compensate.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get a tool's pricing') plus a summary of what the response carries (lastVerifiedAt, sourceUrl, confidence). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_tool or compare_tools.

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?

'Cite the verification date when quoting a price' is guidance on how to use the output, not when to call this tool instead of compare_tools or get_tool. There are no exclusions or preconditions, so usage is only implied by the name.

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