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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the price is 'server-computed' and in PLN, which clarifies that the tool performs authoritative calculation and returns a gross price. It doesn't detail response structure, but with readOnlyHint covering the main behavioral concern, this is solid.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage directive is a single clear sentence. Every word 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 read-only pricing tool with one required parameter and a clear directive, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't describe the return value shape, but there is no output schema and the tool's purpose implies a price result. The addons object could use a bit more explanation, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33% (only propertyType has a description), so the description must compensate. The description names the three parameter groups (property type, add-ons, discount code) and clarifies that the price is gross and in PLN, but it doesn't explain the addons object fields or the discountCode format beyond what the schema shows. This is adequate but not fully compensating.

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 states a specific verb ('get'), a resource ('server-computed gross price in PLN'), and the scope ('for a property type with optional add-ons and an optional discount code'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from manual computation, which helps an agent understand its unique role among siblings.

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 'Always use this instead of computing prices yourself,' which is a clear directive on when to use this tool. It also implies the tool is the authoritative pricing source, and the sibling list contains no other pricing tool, so no alternative routing is needed.

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