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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is free, returns scope/price, and treats each category as a separate unit of work. However, it does not explicitly state whether any record is created or whether this defers commitment/purchase, which leaves some side-effect ambiguity.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a scannable tier list. Every sentence adds useful information and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description. The description covers pricing, tier options, and category semantics; the main gaps are explicit guidance on category-count limits per tier and the slightly opaque 'paige' tier explanation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by enumerating the tier values with prices and explaining category semantics. Business_name is implied by 'business NAMED in AI answers', but the description does not specify category-count limits for regional/national tiers or mention the 'local' default.

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?

Description states a clear verb and resource: 'Return the scope and price to get a business NAMED in AI answers for the given categories.' This distinguishes it from purchase_engagement (quote vs purchase) and audit_business_visibility, while the tier/pricing detail reinforces the quoting purpose.

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 opening 'FREE' and 'Return the scope and price' clearly position this as the pre-purchase quoting step relative to purchase_engagement. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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