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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states it 'Return[s]' data and specifies that the data is 'public pricing,' implying a read-only, non-sensitive operation. It could add details about data freshness or failure modes, but for a simple zero-parameter lookup this is sufficient.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by one actionable directive. It front-loads the core purpose and lists all specifics without wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent everything needed to call it: the exact data points to expect and why to use it. It doesn't address currency, regional variation, or update cadence, but these are minor gaps for a public pricing endpoint.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema is empty and there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description accurately describes what will be returned without needing to explain parameter meanings.

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 verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('Weav public pricing'), and enumerates exact contents (Lite, Plus, Pro, Max monthly prices, annual discount, add-ons, links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_comparison or get_signup, which focus on different aspects.

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 a clear directive: 'Use this instead of scraping weav.com/pricing,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus an external approach. However, it doesn't explicitly mention sibling alternatives or conditions for choosing them, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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