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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-mutating nature, and the description adds helpful behavioral details such as no authentication required, the credit-to-USD conversion rate, and billing currency. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is concise, well-structured, and free of unnecessary detail. It uses short paragraphs and bolded key phrases to communicate pricing, authentication, and region selection efficiently.

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?

Given the simple one-optional-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is priced, which surfaces can be priced, authentication requirements, and billing units. No critical information is missing.

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 already provides full documentation for the optional region parameter, including its enum values and default behavior. The description adds a concrete usage example (?region=US) and clarifies that the same credit balance and key apply, which enriches the parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the tool provides credit-to-price conversion and per-endpoint costs for the India legislation surface, which is a specific and identifiable resource. It also distinguishes the tool by allowing an alternative region (US) to be priced instead, making its scope explicit.

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 states that no authentication is required and explains how to switch to the US region using ?region=US, which is actionable guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but there is no other pricing-specific sibling, so the main usage context is clear.

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