Get Platform-Tier Rental Price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'catalog-driven retail price' context, which clarifies that the price comes from a catalog rather than a live quote. However, it doesn't disclose whether the price is guaranteed, whether it includes taxes/fees, or what happens if the combo is invalid. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parenthetical parameter list is efficient. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only price lookup with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't explain what 'platform-tier' means or how this differs from the sibling virtualsms_rentals_pricing tool. An agent might need to open sibling schemas to disambiguate. The lack of an output schema means the return format is unknown, but for a price lookup that's a minor gap.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the concept of a 'platform-tier rental combo' but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('catalog-driven retail price for a (service, country, duration) platform-tier rental combo'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools like virtualsms_rentals_pricing and virtualsms_get_price by specifying the platform-tier rental combo context. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating from similar pricing tools.

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 implies usage context: it's for getting a retail price for a rental combo, which is distinct from other pricing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like virtualsms_rentals_pricing or virtualsms_get_price. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description provides no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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