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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes that the tool returns a full set of quotable parameters, including mandatory finishes. It is transparent about the output without mentioning side effects or auth, which is acceptable for a schema retrieval tool.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose upfront ('Get the full set...') followed by specific details. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Given one input parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be improved by mentioning that product_slug should be a valid slug, but for a schema retrieval, it is mostly complete.

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?

The parameter product_slug is not described in the schema (0% coverage) and the description only indirectly implies it's a product identifier. It does not give examples or format, but the tool name and purpose provide enough context for a single parameter. Baseline 3 for single param with no schema description.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'product pricing schema'. It lists specific contents like sizes, quantity limits, materials, etc., and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it should be called before get_quote, differentiating it from get_quote, get_file_specs, and 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?

The description explicitly says 'Call before get_quote to know valid option ids', providing clear usage context. It implies when to use it but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context from siblings is sufficient.

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