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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: amounts are in eurocents, the quote mirrors the shop's own calculation, and the failure path returns orderable: false plus reasons instead of a price — an exception mode an agent would otherwise not anticipate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its guarantee, then the returned figures, then the fallback branch. Given there is no output schema, enumerating the returned fields earns its space; nothing is redundant.

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 usefully covers both the success shape and the not-orderable branch, and the eurocents unit removes a common misinterpretation. The remaining gap is the country parameter and whether it changes pricing or shipping, which an agent would have to guess.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not name either parameter. design_id is only loosely implied by 'ontwerp', and country — which plausibly drives shipping cost and pricing — is never mentioned at all, leaving its effect on the returned quote unknown.

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 ('Bereken de actuele prijs van een ontwerp') and pins down the source of truth ('dezelfde berekening als de winkel'). It enumerates the returned quantities (totaal inclusief btw, gefactureerde m², muurmaat met snijrand, verzending, totaal met verzending), which makes it unmistakable from siblings like get_wallpaper_design or render_wallpaper_preview.

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?

Clear context: use it to get a live, shop-identical price quote for a design, and it explicitly defines the branch where the design cannot be ordered (orderable: false with reasons and no price). No sibling alternatives are named and no explicit 'when not to use' is offered, but no sibling provides pricing, so the risk of misselection is low.

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