build_pricing_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tool's output (menu structure, scoping questions, negotiation rule) and a key usage constraint (never in cold messages). Though it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, the word 'Returns' implies a read-only behavior, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 two sentences: the first lists the three output components, the second states usage timing. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers what it returns, how it uses the parameter, and when to use it. It doesn't provide example output or elaborate on the scoping questions, but that's likely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description partially compensates by mentioning 'for the target type,' indicating that the output varies based on target_type. It could explain how to choose among enum values, but the enum names are self-explanatory in context, making the parameter's role reasonably clear.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns a 3-option menu structure, scoping questions, and a negotiation rule. The verb 'Returns' plus the specific components distinguishes it from sibling tools like structure_cold_pitch or build_followup_ladder, which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly provides usage timing: 'Use only after the prospect asks about price — never in a cold message.' This gives both a positive and negative condition, making it clear when the tool should be invoked versus avoided.

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