Recommend a gig price ladder

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — that prices are anchored to observed medians rather than invented — and the operation is implicitly a safe read. It omits any note on determinism, whether results are advisory only, or how unspecified/both-input cases are resolved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the output artifact and the pricing basis with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return structure need not be restated, which lowers the bar. Still, with three undocumented parameters, no annotations covering the safety profile, and unstated interaction between gigs/query, an agent lacks enough to call this confidently in edge cases.

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% and the description addresses only two of the three params loosely ('set of gigs', 'market query'). floor_usd, which materially changes the recommendation and defaults to 25, is never explained, nor is the precedence or exclusivity between gigs and query when both are supplied.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it recommends a three-tier Basic/Standard/Premium price ladder with medians as the anchor. That is far more informative than the bare tool name, though it never differentiates itself from siblings list_gigs and analyse_market, which plausibly feed it.

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 parenthetical 'a set of gigs (or a market query)' tells the agent the two input paths, which is implicit routing guidance toward list_gigs output or analyse_market output. It does not state when to prefer this tool over analyse_market, nor when not to call it.

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