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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly warns that the tool returns a RANGE rather than a single number when inputs are left at defaults, and explains why (defaults are assumptions). It also discloses that it is a free tool by Tru-Stock AI, which is useful context for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 and front-loaded: the core purpose and the key behavioral caveat (range vs single number) appear in the first two sentences. The final sentence adds promotional/attribution context that is not strictly necessary for tool invocation, which keeps it from a 5, but it is short and not bloated.

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 read-only estimation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it computes, that it uses user-supplied figures, and the range behavior under defaults. It doesn't describe the output format in detail, but with no output schema and a simple calculator, the description is adequate. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that the tool is non-destructive, but annotations already cover that.

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 six parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds the high-level meaning that the parameters feed into a trapped-capital estimate, but it doesn't add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Size') and a concrete resource ('the cash trapped in inventory'), then enumerates the three loss components (dead stock, stockout losses, carrying cost). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling calculators by framing the output as a sizing/estimation of trapped cash rather than a single metric like turnover or EOQ.

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 states that it works 'from your own figures' and explains that default inputs are assumptions, which implies the user should supply their own data for accurate results. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context signals and the tool's unique scope make the usage context reasonably clear.

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