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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the conceptual output ('capacity utilization and the hiring gap') and does not disclose calculation assumptions, edge cases, or output format.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, stating the purpose in one line. The second sentence is a promotional URL that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so the definition is not perfectly waste-free.

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 simple three-parameter calculator with full schema descriptions and read-only annotations, the description supplies enough context to understand what is computed. It omits output format details, but with no output schema the conceptual output description is largely sufficient.

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 three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any syntax, units, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 comparison verb and resources ('CSM account load against a healthy book size') and names the outputs ('capacity utilization and the hiring gap'). It distinguishes itself from generic financial or growth calculators by focusing on CSM capacity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied context is CS capacity planning, but the agent must infer that from the purpose alone.

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