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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses authoritative vs. display data, surface-specific fields for Romanian output, and disallowed inference paths. It does not state auth, rate limits, or error behavior for unknown SKUs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the imperative and then layers authority rules. It is dense but every sentence carries operative information about which fields are authoritative and which are display-only. Slightly long, but no obvious 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?

For a no-annotation, single-param tool with no output schema, the description pre-emptively documents return-field semantics (pret_lista, pret_autoid_euro, stock_autoid, stock_distributie, price.ron_display) and commercial authority rules. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret it is missing.

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 description adds only the word 'exact' to qualify the SKU parameter. That is consistent with the schema's 'Exact AutoID product SKU' but adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting on a single documented parameter.

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 specific verb and resource ('Returns the current authoritative AutoID offer for an exact SKU') and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product by scope (single exact SKU, live commercial authority). The agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit imperative 'ALWAYS use this tool before answering current price, stock, availability or delivery questions' tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. It also names the authority rules and what not to do ('Do not convert EUR yourself and do not infer availability from cached descriptions'), which functions as clear when-not guidance.

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