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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: this is the entry point of the ordering flow, its prices are catalog prices rather than order prices, and enum values must be reused verbatim downstream. It stops short of describing pagination/return shape, but for a static reference catalog that is minor.

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?

It is front-loaded with the offer contents, then the usage rule, then the pricing caveat and the enum warning; each sentence carries information an agent needs. It is dense and slightly long, but no clause is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the call returns, and it does — property types, prices, add-ons, supported documents, and allowed-value lists. Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional param, read-only), this is close to complete, only lacking detail on the exact shape of the returned lists.

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 parameter already documents its narrowing behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by instructing that the enum values must be passed later exactly as shown here, which is meaningful guidance about how the parameter's values propagate to other calls.

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 names a concrete resource (the certificate 'offer') and enumerates its content: property types with gross base price, paid add-ons, supported document types, and allowed value lists. It also differentiates from siblings by pointing at calculate_certificate_price for per-order pricing, so the agent can tell what this tool is versus its neighbors.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger — call this first when the user hasn't specified the property type — and an explicit alternative for pricing ('Prices here are list prices — a specific order's price is calculated by calculate_certificate_price'). Both the when-to-use and the sibling hand-off are stated, not implied.

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