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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses currency (EUR), tax (plus IVA), what is included (photo and video), and that final quotes are confirmed by a person. It does not describe whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, authentication, or response structure, leaving some gaps for a simple lookup.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and the key pricing context is front-loaded. The parenthetical handles inclusions efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers return value context (starting prices, currency, tax, inclusions) and the human-confirmation caveat. It omits what happens when the service parameter is omitted and does not explain the enum values, leaving gaps an agent must resolve from the schema.

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 compensate for the single service parameter. It never mentions the service parameter or its enum values (event-half, event-full, studio-day). An agent must infer that 'rate card' relates to these service tiers without explicit mapping.

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 clearly indicates the tool provides starting prices from the rate card, including currency and inclusions. It does not use an explicit verb, but the resource and purpose are understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_services or check_availability.

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?

The description implies the tool is for getting initial price estimates and notes that final quotes require human confirmation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as check_availability or list_services.

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