Estimate an order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value by disclosing that the result compares the computed price against the available wallet balance, which is behavior not visible in the schema or 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?

Two sentences, the trigger condition is front-loaded, and the non-mutation guarantee is placed last for emphasis. No 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?

With no output schema, the description at least conveys what the result contains (price and wallet-balance comparison). It stops short of saying how validation failures for the briefing are surfaced, which is the one gap an agent would hit in practice.

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 coverage is 71% and the nested briefing variants are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'these arguments', leaving behavioral details entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it checks, prices and wallet-compares an order described by the arguments. 'Changes nothing' implicitly separates it from growwer_create_order, though it never names that sibling.

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?

'Use this when the user considers buying an article on a media' gives a clear trigger condition for the pre-purchase step. It does not explicitly say when to stop estimating and call create_order, but the read-only framing makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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