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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that values are live-scraped from an external URL, implying freshness and possible network dependence. It says nothing about failure modes or caching.

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?

Purpose and usage trigger are front-loaded in the first sentence set, with the parameter note last. Slightly repetitive phrasing (two "for example" constructions, price framing repeated) costs it the top score.

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 single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (starting prices per service), the source, and the filter. Absent are the shape of returned records and whether unpriced or missing services are surfaced, minor for this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does: the service argument is documented as optional and as a keyword filter with worked examples ('seo', 'website'). The matching semantics (substring vs exact) are left implicit, which is the only gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (TESSA's starting prices for every service) and states the retrieval mode (read live from https://tessa.tech/pricing/), with concrete service examples. An agent can distinguish this from get_services, which covers offerings rather than prices.

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 this when someone asks what TESSA charges or wants to compare prices" gives a clear trigger condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_services for scope questions), so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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