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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the workflow dependency on calculate_price. However, it never reconciles the 'Get' framing with readOnlyHint=false, and it gives no hints about return shape or whether calling it has side effects beyond fetching.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the sequencing instruction.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and a nested input object, the description covers purpose and the critical dependency on calculate_price. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it leaves the return payload and the readOnly=false behavior undocumented.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the option groups that come back but adds nothing about the `type`, `profileId`, or nested `selections` parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Get configuration options for a capability type') and enumerates the option groups returned, so the agent knows what it retrieves. Sibling differentiation is only implicit via the calculate_price link rather than a named contrast.

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 explicit sequencing ('Use before calling calculate_price'), which tells the agent where this tool sits in the workflow and why it is needed. It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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