get_pricing_reference

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: pricing is historical, specific to the south Alabama contractor market, and must be adjusted for other regions. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into helpful USE WHEN / DO NOT USE WHEN / GOTCHAS sections. Every section earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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?

Usage guidance and gotchas are strong, and annotations plus an output schema reduce the need to describe return values. However, the lack of parameter-level explanation for 'kind' and 'unit_type' leaves an agent guessing about valid values and combinations, so the description is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 burden of explaining parameters, but it only implicitly references service_category through 'what do we charge for X?'. It does not explain the meaning of 'kind' (default 'labor') or 'unit_type', nor how they affect the lookup. This is a significant gap.

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: 'Look up historical pricing from the south Alabama contractor line item corpus.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from job-line-item lookups by naming the sibling alternative in the DO NOT USE section.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN scenarios are listed (generating estimates, validating pricing, comparing job costs, 'what do we charge for X?'), and a DO NOT USE WHEN exclusion names the correct alternative tool. This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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