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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the exact return contents (tier count, INR pre-tax pricing, limits, trial length) and that data is 'read live from the same source as the pricing page,' signaling freshness rather than caching — important since there is no 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads exactly what is returned, the second supplies the freshness guarantee. 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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating contents; annotations cover the read-only, non-open-world profile. There are no parameters and no mutation concerns, so an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. Schema coverage is also 100%, so nothing is left undocumented.

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?

Names a specific resource (OpenProof's public pricing plans) and enumerates exactly what it returns: three annual tiers, INR prices before taxes, inclusions/limits, and trial length. It is clearly distinct from all four siblings (dpdp_* regulatory queries, scan_site), though the retrieval verb is implied by 'Read live' rather than stated up front.

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 tool's subject matter obvious, so usage is strongly implied — call it when you need current OpenProof pricing. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions/conditions, leaving the agent to infer the trigger.

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