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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is static informational content and hints at temporal variation ('today's one-time price'), which is useful behavior context. It doesn't address caching or freshness guarantees, but for a zero-parameter read-only info tool the gap is small.

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?

Front-loaded with the content summary, then the usage sentence. It is efficient and readable; the line-broken wrapping and parenthetical example add slight bulk but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what is returned, and it does: price, listing contents, and the free badge route. Combined with the clear pre-submit usage framing, an agent has everything needed to call and use it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe.

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 (get) and the exact informational content returned: one-time price, what a listing includes, the free badge route. This distinguishes it from the sibling submit_listing, though it reads more as a content summary than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before submit_listing' and names the user question it answers ('how do I get my AI tool listed on HokAI?'). The alternative (submit_listing) and the condition that selects this tool are both stated.

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