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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them. It discloses pricing semantics (ex-VAT vs incl-VAT fields, promo expiration), that prices are guest-level with no loyalty discounts, and that shipping, packaging and payment-method costs are excluded and added at checkout. It also documents default-value behavior and that rule-hidden options surface in ignored_option_ids.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned (price, then shipping date) and then the caveats and prerequisites. The prose is dense and run-on in places, and 'come li mostra la scheda' is slightly redundant, but no sentence is filler and the ordering respects how an agent needs to read it.

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 8 parameters, the description carries the burden well: it names the response fields (total_excl_vat, list_total_excl_vat, total, ignored_option_ids), the prerequisite call, and the pricing exclusions. It is short only on error/invalid-configuration behavior and the meaning of the remaining numeric parameters.

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 50% across 8 parameters. The description adds real meaning for selections (unspecified options fall back to the page default, flagged as default: true, hidden ones go to ignored_option_ids) and confirms the provenance of product_id/variant_id/quantity, but width, height, subjects and graphic_service are left entirely to the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 precise output: the price of a configuration under the site price list plus, for each shipping speed, the dispatch date (explicitly clarified as the day it leaves the warehouse, not arrival). It is clearly distinguishable from the catalog siblings and even names get_product as a prerequisite, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus the others.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the sequence: call get_product first, because product_id, variant_id, options and allowed quantity come from there. It does not state when not to use this tool (e.g. catalog browsing), but the dependency routing is concrete enough that an agent can pick correctly between this and the three sibling tools.

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