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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description reinforces this with 'Starts nothing' and characterizes the return value, which is useful added context. It stops short of auth or rate-limit details, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, side-effect guarantee second, usage rule last. Every sentence 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 read-only estimate tool with clear annotations, the description covers purpose, no-side-effects, the calling sequence, and a summary of the return shape. With no output schema it could say slightly more about the estimate's structure, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 67% (panelId, studyId, temperature undocumented), just below the high-coverage baseline. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the domain framing of 'a study against a panel'; the fields that drive cost (samples, interviewPeople, budgetUsd) are only explained in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb (estimate) and resource (panel run cost), and enumerates what the estimate contains (people, model calls, dollars of workspace credit). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling prism_panels_run, which actually launches the run.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (prism_panels_run) and the sequencing condition: 'Tell the person the cost before calling prism_panels_run.' It also rules out misuse with 'Starts nothing,' so the agent knows this is the safe pre-flight check.

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