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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: 'Free, no key needed' discloses the auth/access profile, 'Same document as GET /pricing' identifies the underlying endpoint, and 'the prices are exactly what is charged' pre-empts questions about staleness or approximation. It does not state the response structure beyond a content inventory, which keeps it off 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-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (free, no key) and the content inventory, then the usage pointer. It is a single dense sentence plus two short clauses, with a little redundancy between 'Free, no key needed' and 'Same document as GET /pricing', but nothing that should be cut wholesale.

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 zero-param read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: access requirements, what the returned document contains, the unit of pricing, and when to call it. The only gap is the concrete response shape (key names), which is minor given the enumerated contents.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly adds no parameter guidance.

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+resource ('the machine-readable price list') and enumerates exactly what it contains: per-operation cost in units, base + per-KB pricing, minimum deposit, file-size and webhook limits, trial terms, and the idle-storage fee. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as aanet_estimate_savings, which it explicitly cross-references.

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?

'Use it to budget a swarm before creating a workspace (see also aanet_estimate_savings)' gives a concrete use context and names the nearest alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a routing rule ('use X instead when Y'), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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