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

With annotations already marking this as read-only and idempotent, the description adds valuable context: the estimate is 'estimated, not quotes,' it relies on a specific benchmark ('set hu-2026.1, as of 2026-08'), it includes the custom that cash is expected gifts in Hungary, and it returns a low/anchor/high, marginal cost, and income. This transparency is beyond the schema.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place, and the most central information (what inputs are, what is returned) is front-loaded. It is compact yet information-dense, avoiding redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return payload: total in HUF, per-line breakdown, marginal cost, expected cash-gift income. It also covers the Hungarian customs, benchmark currency, and the 'estimate not quote' limitation, making the tool self-contained.

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 86%, with detailed descriptions for almost every parameter. The description adds only contextual flavor (guest count, price tier, region, ceremony type, 'same engine as...') without a new semantic insight beyond what the schema already provides. This maintains the baseline for schema-heavy parameter support.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'a dated, sourced cost estimate for a wedding in Hungary,' then clarifies the benchmark set and exact inputs (guest count, tier, region, ceremony type). It differentiates itself from the sibling tools by emphasizing cost estimation and return values, while even naming its underlying engine latido.wedding/kalkulator.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use for "mennyibe kerül egy esküvő" questions.' It does not mention alternative tools or exclusive when-not-to-use scenarios, but the sibling tools are distinct enough (search, availability, checklist) that this is clear context rather than a confusion.

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