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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the contract and optionally the live source or a specific version, and explains the workflow loop. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context beyond the safety flags, such as the fact that it returns source only when requested.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the critical instruction ('Start here') and then enumerates the contract and workflow. While long, every sentence adds value—no filler. It could be broken into bullets, but the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 explain what the tool returns, which it does thoroughly by listing contract components and explaining the workflow. It also covers optional parameters and their effects. For a complex tool that serves as an entry point, this is complete.

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 schema covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interplay: 'Pass includeSource=true to also get the live equation's source, or equationId=<id> to get the source of one specific version' and clarifying ownerId omission for ORDER scope. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Start here before reading, writing or changing a pricing equation,' immediately establishing its role as an entry point. It clearly states it 'Returns the TypeScript contract the equation runs against' and enumerates the contract contents, which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save, generateQuote, and publishEquation, which are part of the workflow it describes.

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?

It explicitly says to start here before any other pricing-equation operation, then outlines the sequence: save to validate, generateQuote to test, and publishEquation only on explicit request. It also clarifies when to use includeSource and equationId, and that ownerId is omitted for ORDER scope. This gives clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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