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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the result is binding and backend-computed, and by forbidding the agent from computing or recalling prices independently. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tightly written sentences with the key constraint front-loaded: the price is binding and backend-calculated. Every sentence earns its place, and the do-not-hallucinate warning is immediately actionable.

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 pricing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core call patterns and the critical anti-fabrication rule. The schema covers individual parameters in detail. It is slightly incomplete only in not describing return value shape or handling of the optional options/discount_code fields in the two modes.

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 high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the order_id+access_token pairing for exact pricing versus property_type alone for approximate pricing. It does not elaborate on discount_code or the nested options object, but those are reasonably covered by the schema.

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 that the tool returns a binding certificate price calculated by the backend, with two distinct invocation modes. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_pricing.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: provide order_id plus access_token for a specific order, or property_type alone for an indicative quote. It also strongly warns against self-calculating or quoting prices from memory, but it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to siblings.

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