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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the values are ranges from past engagements, not quotes, and scope drives the number. This helps the agent set expectations about the precision of the output. 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, no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about ranges vs quotes is placed early. Every sentence adds value: the first lists content, the second explains the nature and use cases.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It does: 'typical price tiers by service' implies a structured breakdown of ranges. It also covers the optional parameter and the use cases. For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, this is sufficient. Missing details like exact output format are minor.

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% and the parameter 'section' has an enum with a description. The description adds meaning by mapping the enum values to real-world service categories (e.g., 'what a website costs' implies web-development, 'SEO and AEO' implies growth). This helps the agent decide which section to use without opening the schema.

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 clear purpose: providing typical price ranges by service type, and explicitly lists the categories (website, e-commerce, custom app, AI automation, SEO/AEO, support). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on pricing, which none of the other tools cover. The verb 'get' and resource 'pricing context' are unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for "what's their pricing like" or "can they do X for $Y".' It also clarifies that the data is not quotes, which prevents misuse for exact pricing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are clear and the distinction from quotes is helpful.

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