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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance — that prices are 'indicative' rather than binding quotes — but says nothing about response format, currency, or how invalid/edge inputs behave.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 and low schema coverage, the description carries full burden and falls short: it never says what the return value looks like (single price, per-category list), in what currency, or what startDate/vehicleYear do. For an open-world pricing lookup this is a notable gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. Its parameter mention ('territory, term and vehicle category') merely restates three parameter names, offering no enum values, formats or meaning, and it ignores startDate and vehicleYear entirely — including that startDate is validated but does not currently affect the 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Green Card prices') and names the three scoping dimensions (territory, term, vehicle category), which distinguishes it from get_fuel_prices, get_oscpv_price and get_service_status. It stops short of an explicit contrast with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 use this tool versus the other pricing tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that territory/term/vehicleCategory must be supplied). The single qualifier 'Indicative' hints the output is an estimate, but no usage guidance is provided.

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