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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral context: the price is binding and backend-computed, and the access_token is sensitive and must not be shown to the user. It also warns against using memory for prices. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful operational constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the two usage modes, then the critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning is emphasized with 'NIGDY' (never). No wasted words.

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 read-only pricing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key decision (order vs. indicative) and the critical constraint (don't calculate prices). It doesn't describe the return format, but since there's no output schema, that's a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between order_id/access_token and property_type, and by warning about the access_token's sensitivity. It doesn't detail the options object, but the schema covers those fields. Overall, the description complements the schema well.

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 tool's purpose: it calculates a binding price for a certificate. It distinguishes two modes: exact price for a specific order (order_id + access_token) or an indicative quote (property_type alone). It also explicitly warns against calculating prices independently, which differentiates it from any pricing-related sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: when to use order_id + access_token vs. property_type alone. It also gives a strong exclusion: never calculate the price yourself or provide amounts from memory. This is clear, actionable guidance for an agent.

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