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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that results are scoped to one customer organisation and listing what is returned, without contradicting any annotation.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence states scope and enumerates what is returned, and the second provides a concrete use-case question. Every clause adds useful 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?

For a read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the required input, defines the scope precisely, and explains the return contents well enough for an agent to know what to expect. No additional context is 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?

The input schema already documents customerOrganisationId fully at 100% coverage, including its type and semantic reference. The description reinforces the parameter by mapping it to 'customer X' in the use-case sentence, but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return the pricing configured specifically for one customer organisation.' It clearly contrasts this with storefront defaults and enumerates the exact types of overrides included, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from broad pricing tools.

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 it: 'Use it to answer "does customer X have special pricing?"' It also establishes the boundary against storefront defaults. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but for a single-purpose getter the usage context is clear.

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