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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: deterministic, evidence-bounded, signed, and no live-catalog change. However, it leaves 'signed' and 'evidence-bounded' undefined, and the fee '0.004 USDC' is unclear.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by three short constraints. The stray '0.004 USDC.' feels abrupt and there is a typo ('catalog.;'), but every sentence carries intent.

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-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. Yet it doesn't clarify whether the caller should supply arbitrary properties (schema allows additionalProperties) or what 'evidence-bounded' means in practical terms, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There are zero defined parameters, and the schema is a generic object with additionalProperties true. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, but with zero formal parameters the schema inherently covers everything. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action (propose) on a specific artifact (capped shadow price) and explicitly notes it does not modify the live catalog, which distinguishes it from price-update tools. However, the phrase 'capped shadow price' is domain-specific and not fully self-explanatory to an unfamiliar agent.

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 a use case (proposing a price without changing the catalog) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives like price_discovery_engine. An agent would have to infer when this tool is appropriate relative to its many siblings.

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