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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain-specific assurance ('no funds move and nothing is created') plus the backing endpoint POST /api/build/price, which goes beyond a bare restatement of the annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core purpose leads and the endpoint mapping closes. The endpoint line is marginally decorative but not enough to be wasteful.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the intent but leaves gaps: valid capability types, what profileId/capabilityId select, and what the quote response contains beyond 'itemized' are all unaddressed.

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%: only `type` and `selections` are documented, and the description names exactly those two ('capability type + selections'). It adds no meaning for the undocumented `profileId` and `capabilityId`, nor any hint about the shape of the nested `selections` object.

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: 'Price a configured PCC capability', and clarifies it returns an itemized quote for a given capability type plus selections. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent pricing siblings such as calculate_price or get_shipment_quote.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a configured PCC capability' and 'given capability type + selections' hint that configuration must precede the call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many quote/price siblings.

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