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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it excellently. It discloses the key non-obvious behaviors: the request is sent without payment, the result is a 402 quote, the tool does not actually run, and it costs nothing.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical safety/cost behavior.

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 description is sufficient for a simple 2-parameter pricing tool: it explains the input, the behavior, the return value (402 quote), and the lack of execution/cost. It does not detail the exact response shape, but that is minor given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: the body is transmitted as-is to obtain a quote, and the slug identifies a specific paid tool from the catalogue. This enriches the raw schema definitions.

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 specific action ('Exact price of one paid tool for a given request body') and clearly distinguishes the tool from actually running the paid tool. It also ties to the sibling dexl_catalogue via the slug parameter, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when you need a price quote without executing the tool or paying. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like dexl_how_to_pay, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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