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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It merely states the calculation and includes a promotional link, which does not contribute to behavioral transparency.

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, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose and scope, and the second sentence providing a marketing link. The extra link is non-essential but not harmful. The content is efficient and easy to scan, earning a high score for structure.

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 straightforward calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output type (total and percentage). However, it does not specify the exact response structure, any defaults, or edge cases. Given the annotations already handle safety, this level of detail is adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already self-documenting. The description lists the cost components (warehousing, insurance, shrinkage, depreciation, opportunity cost), which map directly to parameters but do not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool calculates the true annual cost of holding inventory, enumerates the cost components (warehousing, insurance, shrinkage, depreciation, opportunity cost), and specifies the output (total and percentage). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like calculate_inventory_turnover or calculate_reorder_point, which address different inventory metrics.

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 the tool is for carrying cost calculations but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or which sibling tool to choose instead. An agent must infer the appropriate usage from the tool name and the calculation's purpose, which is only implicit.

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