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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific behavioral guarantee 'creates no checkout', which is not in the annotations and clarifies there is no side effect like initiating a purchase. It also says 'current published', implying up-to-date data. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a clear behavioral note. No wasted words, no redundancy with annotations, and the key information is immediately accessible.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key behavior (no checkout). It does not specify the return format, but for a pricing lookup that may be self-evident. It is adequate for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 returns current published duration pricing and self-service/assisted-ingest boundaries. It is specific about the resource (pricing) and distinct from siblings: get_forensiscope_capabilities covers capabilities, classify_media_route covers classification, and prepare_forensiscope_handoff covers handoff. An agent can immediately tell this is the pricing lookup.

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 when pricing or ingest-boundary information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and content.

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