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

The description discloses what the tool returns (EOQ, orders per year, total annual cost) and states the optimization objective cancelling ordering and holding cost. It doesn't mention edge cases or assumptions, but annotations mark it read-only/non-destructive, so no safety contradiction.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first phrase and output details immediately after. The trailing marketing line ('Free tool by Tru-Stock AI') is unnecessary but not harmful.

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 description names the outputs and objective, which is enough for straightforward selection, but it omits assumptions (e.g., constant demand, how optional holding-cost parameters interact) and the schema's defaults are not reflected in prose. For a five-parameter calculator with no output schema, the absence of these details leaves some ambiguity.

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 already describes all parameters (annualDemand, orderCost, unitCost, holdingCostPct, holdingCostPerUnit). The description adds only conceptual context about ordering and holding costs but doesn't provide additional parameter-level guidance or explain parameter interactions/defaults.

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 action ('Calculate the Economic Order Quantity') and defines the EOQ as the order size minimizing combined ordering and holding cost, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling inventory calculations. It also lists the computed outputs, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The intended use is implied by the EOQ definition, but the description does not help an agent choose between this and sibling calculators beyond the formula name.

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