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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real scope boundaries beyond that: it never touches accounts, subscriptions, invoices, or tickets, and never mutates a subscription. That is useful disambiguation, though nothing is said about caching, rate limits, or freshness.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the positive capability before the negative scope. The line breaks are slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers capability, scope exclusions, and a price-check usage hint, which is sufficient for a trivial read-only tool with one constant parameter.

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 single parameter (language, const 'en', default 'en') is never mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. Because the parameter is a fixed constant with no decision value, the omission is low-impact, so 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 verb and resource: reading public FAQs and finding country-specific plans/help/legal links. This clearly separates it from the documentary/article siblings (search_articles, get_documentary, get_person), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Consult the plans page for current prices' gives one implied usage context, and the negative scoping ('never reads accounts... never purchases') tells the agent when not to use it. However, no sibling or alternative is named, so routing must be inferred.

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