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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false but readOnlyHint=false, which is mildly surprising for a pure calculation and is neither explained nor reconciled. The description does add value by disclosing the returned components (base price, tier premiums, total), which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits side effects, permissions, and caching behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return contents second; no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what is returned, and the fully documented schema covers the inputs. The main remaining gap is the unresolved readOnlyHint=false signal for what reads like a side-effect-free calculation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents type, profileId, and selections (including the nested material/dimensions/quantity fields). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Calculate price for a capability configuration') and is clearly distinct from calculation siblings such as calculate_roi. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent quote/fee tools like pcc.op.capability.request_quote or protocol_fee, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though the sibling list contains several pricing/quote/fee tools (calculate_roi, request_quote, protocol_fee, pcc_protocol_fee) that an agent must choose between. Prerequisites for calling it are also unstated.

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