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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that price differences are server-calculated and that saved estimates cannot be retrieved, meaning inputs must be supplied from the conversation. This aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, directly addresses the core function, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

While the description does not explain the output format, an output schema is provided, so that omission is acceptable. It adequately conveys the inputs (baseline from conversation, up to three alternatives) and the core functionality. It could be slightly more explicit about the number of scenarios, but the schema already constrains that.

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 schema has no descriptions for the many parameters (coverage 0%), and the tool description only mentions 'baseline' and 'scope alternatives' without explaining their structure or any individual fields. Since the schema is highly complex and the description does not compensate, parameter semantics are severely lacking.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: calculating a baseline and up to three scope alternatives on the same pricing policy, including server-calculated price differences. It specifies the verb 'Calculate' and the resource (baseline and alternatives), and it distinguishes this from a single-price tool by emphasizing comparison and price differences.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a baseline from the conversation and want to compare alternatives), but it does not explicitly mention sibling tools like calculate_guide_price or get_estimate_requirements, nor does it state conditions when not to use this tool. Guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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