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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: the price-resolution semantics (fallback to lowest across locations vs location-specific) are behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose whether all locations are searched or how offerings vary per tier.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by what it returns and the price-resolution rule. The parenthetical tier list is informative content rather than padding, and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 shape need not be explained; the description covers resource identity, contents, and price logic, which is sufficient to invoke correctly. The only gap is the unmentioned conversation_id, which slightly lowers completeness for a tool with zero schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for location_id by explaining exactly how price changes with and without it. However, conversation_id is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented across both schema and description.

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 names the resource precisely (CANOPY's membership tiers) and enumerates the content returned: inclusions, starting price, and availability by location. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with locations, tours, or sales questions.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this answers 'what memberships exist and what do they cost,' but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative routing is given. The location_id conditional ('without... lowest across locations; with one... that location's price') is the closest thing to guidance, but it is scoping behavior rather than a use-case rule.

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