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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are informational excerpts rather than a binding quote, but says nothing about matching behavior, result limits, or empty-result handling.

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 zero filler, and the tool's scope is front-loaded before the results caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers what the tool searches and the non-authoritative nature of results. It is still incomplete on the key ambiguity of how it differs from get_prices and what an excerpt actually contains.

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% and the single query parameter already documents its purpose, length bounds and concrete examples. The description's phrase 'a service or phrase' only loosely echoes this, 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 clear verb and resource: find context for a service or phrase on the public pricing page. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_prices, which an agent would reasonably assume returns the same thing, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though get_prices and ask_oleba are obvious competing choices. The 'not a binding quote' caveat hints at a use case (informational lookups) but does not actually route the agent between tools.

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