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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'no order is created' largely restates the read-only hint. It adds pricing semantics (MRC/NRC) but says nothing about rate limits, pagination behavior for the 5000-item cap, or what an empty pricing result means — modest added value against a low annotation-driven bar.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The glossary sentence is compact and directly resolves an unreadable enum token.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, read-only status, and pricing terms. The main residual gap is routing guidance against the many sibling pf_list_* and pf_find_locations tools, which the description never addresses.

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 coverage is 78%, just under the high-coverage baseline, and most parameters carry their own descriptions. The description still adds genuine value by glossing an otherwise opaque enum value ('vcbwc = backbone virtual circuit bandwidth'), which the schema's 17-value product_type enum does not explain anywhere.

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 ('look up list pricing (MRC/NRC) for a PacketFabric product between locations') with clear scope, and the MRC/NRC framing distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that enumerate resources rather than price them. An agent can tell this is a pricing-estimate tool, not a provisioning tool, without opening the schema.

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?

'Read-only, no order is created' implies the intended use case (previewing cost before ordering), which is useful implied guidance. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, so routing is left to inference.

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