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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: transacted prices are preferred only when at least 5 samples exist, otherwise listed prices are used, and the exact return statistics are enumerated. This makes fallback behavior and output shape predictable without an output schema.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: purpose first, data-source behavior second, return values third. Every sentence provides non-obvious information needed to use the tool correctly.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, optional filtering, fallback logic, and return fields. The main remaining gap is the ambiguous semantics of the currency parameter and lack of explicit empty/no-data behavior, so it is near-complete but not perfect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantic burden. It clarifies 'category' as the service category and 'location' as an optional filter, which is useful. However, it does not explain the role of the optional 'currency' parameter as an input, and it gives no value format or vocabulary guidance for the free-text string 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get aggregated price ranges for a service category'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_quote, accept_quote, or get_provider_details, and the optional location filter further narrows its scope.

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 makes the intended use clear: use this when you need aggregate price statistics for a category, optionally narrowed by location. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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