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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats 'No side effects' and adds pricing/VAT/overage context, but does not add auth, rate-limit, or response-shape behavior beyond what annotations and schema 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?

The description is front-loaded with the product list and every clause describes relevant return content, but it is a single dense run-on sentence that would be clearer as structured bullets. It is informative but not optimally concise.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, covering products, one-off and yearly pricing, VAT, usage allowances, overage terms, and contact channels. It is nearly complete for invocation, though it lacks explicit sibling-routing guidance.

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% and the single locale parameter is already documented with its enum, default, and meaning. The description does not add any locale-specific semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (list products/prices) and enumerates the exact product set and pricing fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_quote or request_contact.

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?

The description explains what will be returned but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_quote, request_contact, or list_work. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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