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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the useful note that prices are in the vendor's smallest currency unit; it says nothing about pagination behavior or total counts, which the annotations don't cover.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading what is returned. It is efficient, though slightly terse given how much it leaves unexplained.

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 and zero parameter documentation, the description should carry more: it does not explain paging, max page size of 100, sort constraints, or the return shape beyond naming the business fields. For a four-parameter list endpoint this leaves real gaps.

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 four parameters (page, count, sortDir, sortField), and the description compensates for none of them — no mention of paging, page size limits, or that sorting is restricted to createdAt. Parameter names and defaults carry the entire burden here.

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 names the resource concretely — pass catalog, session allowance, prices — and specifies the currency-unit convention, which tells an agent the shape of the data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fitssey_get_pricing_option, so the list-vs-single distinction is only implied by the tool name.

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 rather than fitssey_get_pricing_option or the contract/product tools, and no mention of prerequisites or result-set expectations. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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