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

Annotations already certify read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: pricing is version-invariant and the response can be truncated ('truncated', 'next_offset', 'headings'), which an agent cannot learn from annotations or 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the version caveat and truncation contract. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; the final sentence is packed with field names and could be marginally tighter.

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-shape burden and does so, naming the truncation fields and the continuation path. Combined with annotation-covered safety semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'max_chars' param is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the consequence of the parameter (what truncation metadata appears and how to resume), which adds meaning beyond 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the content of OpenVidu's pricing page (editions, plans, cost model)'. The enumerated scope distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_doc_page, get_changelog, and search_docs.

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 routes the agent: when the page is cut at max_chars, pass the retrieved 'url' to get_doc_page with 'next_offset' (or a heading) to continue. It also explains why no 'version' argument exists, which preempts a wrong call against list_versions/get_doc_page.

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