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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful cost context (20 credits / €0.20 per call), which is not in structured data, but says nothing about analysis depth, latency, or what the credit spend buys.

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 content sentences plus a cost line, front-loaded with the capability and its components. The standalone 'CONVERT.' token is cryptic and slightly disrupts flow, but overall there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the credit cost is disclosed. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition should still say what to supply for the required product and the optional context/session fields.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description says nothing about what 'product', 'context', or 'session_id' should contain. It does not compensate for the coverage gap at all, leaving the agent to guess at the required input format.

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?

States concrete deliverables — price framing, anchoring, tier structure, decoy pricing, value articulation — with a clear verb (design) and outcome (maximize willingness to pay). None of the siblings (churn, onboarding, checkout, copy) overlap, so an agent can route unambiguously.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The bare tag 'CONVERT.' hints at a funnel stage but does not tell the agent what inputs or situation qualify for a pricing optimization request.

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