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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the content of the explanation (source labels, provenance, confidence, caveats), which 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 with two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. There is no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It mentions the types of information provided (source labels, provenance, confidence, caveats), which is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it. However, it could benefit from a brief mention of the output format or structure, but the output schema compensates.

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 description coverage is 100% with all three parameters having descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds overall context but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers for each parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: explaining source labels, provenance, confidence, and caveats behind Loa prices for a single entity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_entity_prices (which retrieves prices) and get_pricing_estimate (which estimates) by focusing on the provenance and explanation of price sources.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when an agent needs to tell a user why prices are MRF-published, Loa-reviewed, estimated, or unavailable.' This provides clear guidance, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or list specific alternatives.

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