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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds that the result is only an estimate ('Ориентировочная цена') and that final pricing comes from the manager's quote. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.

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 deliver purpose, option pricing, model argument semantics, output fields, and a caveat without filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema and safety annotations present, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: required model argument, optional parameters, pricing logic, currency, and the estimate-versus-final caveat. No critical information 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?

Although the schema already documents all three parameters, the description adds meaning by specifying the accepted model formats (product_number or model name) and concrete surcharge amounts for spindle power and vacuum table. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions and helps an agent construct correct inputs.

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 clear verb+resource: it calculates an estimated machine price with options and returns base_price, options, and estimated_total. The focus on price configuration with option surcharges distinguishes it from siblings like get_machine_detail and compare_machines.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: when an approximate price with spindle-power and vacuum-table options is needed. It also sets expectations by noting the final price is in the manager's quote, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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