package_prices

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing — not whether this is a pure computation or a mutation, whether it depends on previously recorded wins, or what happens when no 'average won' exists. It hints at inputs but never states the side-effect or precondition profile.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than economy: a bare noun list with a prepositional modifier, no front-loaded statement of purpose. Every word 'counts' but the sentence never lands as a claim about the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a pricing-generation tool the description never explains what it computes or when to reach for it. The combination of zero annotations and a cryptic fragment leaves the agent materially under-informed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The phrase 'from average won + anchor' usefully signals that the inputs are derived from recorded data rather than passed in, which is more than the empty schema conveys.

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 fragment names package types (discovery / milestone / retainer) and two inputs (average won + anchor), so the subject matter is inferable, but there is no verb and no statement of what the tool actually produces. An agent cannot confidently tell this apart from rate_advice, board_advice, or earnings_summary without guessing.

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?

'Discovery / milestone / retainer from average won + anchor' gives no when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no alternative. Several siblings (rate_advice, board_advice, pipeline_status) could plausibly cover adjacent pricing questions, and nothing routes the agent between them.

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