Price a job

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It reveals that the tool is deterministic ('same arguments always return the same answer'), makes no network call, and generates prices from a live store catalog. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which the description aligns with. The only minor gap is not expanding on what the return structure looks like, but the tool has an output schema which mitigates this.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences with clear front-loading: the first sentence states the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., breaking guidelines into a separate sentence), but it's efficient and avoids waste.

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 has only 2 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and readOnlyHint+openWorldHint annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, constraints (no network call, deterministic), and parameter semantics. The output schema covers return structure. There are no gaps in information needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what values each enum choice covers (e.g., 'mcp' includes registry listing, live tool preview, etc.) and explains the scope parameter's purpose (free text to help pick a tier, never changes prices). This adds genuine value beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'Upshift's real prices' and clearly distinguishes between two job types (mcp and website). It immediately communicates that this tool provides actual listed prices, not estimates, and gives concrete examples of what each job_type covers, making it easy for an agent to understand exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when someone asks what a job costs, what a tier includes, or how long it takes.' It also specifies limitations: it cannot quote a price that is not sold, and the same arguments always return the same answer. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, the context of pricing guidance is clearly delineated from other tools like upshift_site_audit.

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