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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the return payload (cost per 1M tokens, live savings ratio, source links) and the recommended next step, which goes beyond bare annotation information. It does not introduce contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then return values, then a logical follow-up. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has a low complexity (one optional parameter), a rich output schema (asserted in context signals), and strong annotations. The description explains exactly what is returned and how to proceed, making it complete for the agent to invoke and interpret results. No critical context 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 input schema covers the single parameter (provider) with a clear enum and description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description mentions 'against a competitor provider' but adds no new syntax or parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Thus 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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource: 'Gonka Network pricing against a competitor provider.' It also lists the return values (cost per 1M tokens, savings ratio, source links), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing or calculate_savings. The title reinforces the purpose without being a tautology.

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 provides clear context—comparing pricing with a competitor—and even suggests a follow-up action ('After this: call calculate_savings() with your monthly spend for exact numbers.'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_pricing or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative naming.

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