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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioural fact — 'Returns RRP only — never dealer or partner prices' — which sets expectations on result scope. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result caps, or partial-match behaviour, leaving meaningful gaps for a read tool.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with purpose and followed by coverage and the vendor enumeration. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description covers scope, inputs, and the vendor domain; the only shortfall is the absence of any guidance on the undocumented 'limit' parameter and on match behaviour for ambiguous fragments.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains that 'query' accepts a name fragment or a code, and lists the six concrete vendor values for the 'vendor' filter that the schema leaves as a free-form string. Only 'limit' remains undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Look up recommended retail price (RRP) by product name fragment or code.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the licensing/trial/requisites siblings, which deal with subscriptions and identity rather than 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?

States the accepted input forms (name fragment or code), enumerates the covered product families, and describes the optional vendor filter with its allowed values. It gives clear operating context but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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