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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states this is a read operation that returns only pricing-related fields, not the full resource, and characterizes it as 'cheaper.' It does not cover errors or authorization, but for a simple one-parameter getter this is reasonable transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence states the output scope, the contrast with the full record, and the rationale for using this tool. There is no filler or redundant restating 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 a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what the agent gets back (price/accepts[]) and what it omits (the full record). It is missing explicit failure/error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 schema has a single 'slug' property with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal parameter meaning by tying the operation to 'a resource,' but it never explicitly explains that the slug identifies that resource or how to format it. Some inference is required.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a resource'), and a precise output scope ('just the price/accepts[]'). It also distinguishes itself from get_resource by explicitly saying it returns 'without the full record,' so an agent can tell it apart from sibling 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?

The description gives clear intended context: use it when the agent 'only needs to decide whether it can afford something.' It contrasts with the 'full record' path, implying get_resource as the alternative, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or state when not to use it.

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