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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The word 'Indicative' usefully signals the prices are approximate rather than binding quotes, but the definition omits currency, effective date, or that startDate currently has no effect on the result.

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 efficient clause with no filler, and the price-determining factors are front-loaded. It is a noun fragment lacking a verb phrase (e.g. 'Returns...'), which slightly hurts clarity.

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 no output schema the description need not describe the return shape, and the enum parameters are largely self-documenting. However, for a pricing tool it omits currency, price basis, and the role of the two optional parameters, leaving real gaps for an agent.

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 only 20% (startDate alone, and in Ukrainian), so the description must compensate. It names the three price-determining parameters but adds no meaning beyond their names, and never mentions vehicleYear or explains how term/territory interact with the returned price.

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 ('Green Card prices') and the three dimensions that determine them (territory, term, vehicle category), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_oscpv_price or get_fuel_prices beyond the obvious resource name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_oscpv_price or get_fuel_prices, and no prerequisites or context conditions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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