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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotency, and non-destructiveness, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the result is non-binding, the 402 list price is unchanged, GDPR Art. 5 compliance applies, and each call costs $0.01. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action before supporting details. Each sentence contributes functional context, though 'Returns JSON hint' is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers key contextual aspects: cost, compliance, non-binding nature, and unchanged list price. It does not explain how the tool relates to other memory pricing tools, but that is more of a usage-guidelines gap.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning about entity_id, tool_name, owner_wallet, or wallet_signature beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 states a clear action ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('signed, non-binding recommendation of verification-call cost from memory'), and clarifies the outcome ('Returns JSON hint'). It does not explicitly differentiate from related memory tools like memory.subscription_quote, 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 description implies usage in a pricing-context scenario but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.subscription_quote or memory.query. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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