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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it reports the middle half of published prices, how many practices publish a price, when the data was read, and falls back to a researched guide range when too few practices publish. The explicit 'It is not a quote' caveat further prevents misuse.

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 compact and well organized: it defines the subject, states the output composition, notes the fallback behavior, and closes with a purpose/caveat sentence. Every sentence adds value, and the key output detail is front-loaded.

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 does a good job of explaining what the agent can expect: the middle half, the count of publishing practices, the read date, or a guide range. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying how the optional 'place' parameter changes the result, though the schema covers that to some degree. Overall it is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds helpful examples of procedure values but does not meaningfully elaborate on the optional 'place' parameter. This matches the baseline 3 for a well-covered schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource as prices UK vet practices publish for common procedures, with concrete examples (consultation, vaccination, neutering, etc.), and explains what it returns (middle half of published prices, count of practices, read date). The title and examples distinguish it from the sibling medicine_prices, which is about medication rather than procedures.

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 usage as a planning aid for owners ('A guide to help an owner plan') and explicitly says it is not a quote, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like medicine_prices or provider_details. There is useful context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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