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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by describing the returned fields (ex GST, GST, total inc GST, turnaround, config_id, share_url), the delivered-price branch triggered by postcode or address_id, the signed-in account-price behavior, and the failure mode ('says what is missing, what is wrong, or the nearest combinations'). It also discloses the Australia-only geographic constraint and the instruction to relay prices exactly as returned.

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 core action and required inputs are front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries information about returns, delivery pricing, or failure behavior. It is slightly overlong, and 'prices are in AUD and include GST' partially restates the earlier ex-GST/GST/inc-GST breakdown and duplicates the schema's Australia-only note.

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 tool with a nested configuration object and four top-level parameters, the description covers sourcing of ids, the delivery-price branch, account-specific pricing, failure diagnostics, and currency/geography. With an output schema present, no further explanation of return structure is required, and none is missing.

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 already 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description adds real value on top by explaining that configuration values are option ids sourced from get_product/match_options and that postcode versus address_id are alternative delivery-price inputs. It does not clarify the relationship among nested fields like designs and quantity beyond what the schema says.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Prices one exact job with Printdash's pricing engine' — and names the required inputs (product id plus a configuration of option ids). It is clear what the tool does, but it never mentions the sibling price_quantities, so an agent must infer the boundary between pricing a single configured job and pricing quantities.

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?

Gives concrete entry conditions and upstream dependencies: option ids come 'from get_product or match_options', and a saved address id comes from list_addresses when signed in. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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