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

Annotations only cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds real behavioral context well beyond them: output ordering (FTC Funeral Rule rights returned first), data provenance (NFDA 2023 medians from an industry member survey), that missing prices are kept visible rather than dropped, that it is pure rules with Decimal money and no network or model calls, and that web and MCP share a free daily allowance (a quota constraint).

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds a distinct fact (ordering, provenance, bundle applicability, missing-price handling, quota). It is slightly dense and a phrase like 'Pure rules and Decimal money' is terse, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain ordering (rights first) and what the worksheet produces. It does not sketch the shape of the returned reference-cost data or clarify that only disposition and service are required while prices is optional, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 75% and the nested prices object documents all 16 line items with their applicability rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes the omit-vs-zero convention ('keeps missing prices visible') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; its viewing-vs-direct nuance concerns which reference figures are shown rather than how to fill the parameters.

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 three specific deliverables with distinct verbs: showing consumer rights, showing national reference costs, and summing a funeral home's itemized prices. That is precise enough to separate it from the home-project cost estimators (driveway_cost, roof_replacement_cost, etc.) sharing the toolset, which only compute a single figure.

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?

It gives clear context for when the results apply (bundle cards only for services with viewing; direct services have no national bundle figure) and warns that the figures are national medians, not local prices, so an agent knows when the reference data is inappropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative statement, but no sibling covers funeral planning, so the gap is minor.

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