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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain-relevant scope context the annotations cannot express: that the payload is a published methodology with exact calculation rules and stated limitations, and explicitly that it is not a valuation output. It does not cover fallback behavior when the version is absent, which keeps it at 4.

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 sentences, no filler. The positive statement of what is returned leads, and the scope-limiting negation follows immediately, which is the right front-loading for an agent deciding whether this tool answers the question.

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-value structure needn't be described, and the description correctly focuses on scope and limitations. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the only missing piece is version-parameter behavior when omitted, which is minor but real.

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?

There is one optional 'version' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full documentation burden. The word 'requested' hints that a version can be supplied, but the description never states the format, where valid versions come from, or what happens if the parameter is omitted (latest published?). That is a meaningful gap for the only input.

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 ('Returns the requested published methodology version, including exact calculation rules and limitations'), and the closing negation ('does not create a forecast, appraisal, or guaranteed selling price') separates it from the pricing siblings such as get_latest_prices. Sibling distinction is conveyed indirectly rather than by naming an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 scope negation functions as an implicit 'when not to use this' (don't expect a forecast or price), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, no sibling is named as the alternative and there is no positive statement of when an agent should reach for this tool, so usage remains inferred rather than explicit.

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