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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds methodological context about weighted 90-day signals and ARR-at-risk quantification, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as output format, calculation limits, or data retention.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a supplemental URL. No wasted words, though the external link is not essential for invoking the tool and slightly dilutes the focus.

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 covers inputs and a high-level output ('grade' and 'quantify ARR at risk'), but with no output schema it does not explain the return format or what a grade comprises. Annotations handle safety, but output expectations are left vague for a 5-parameter calculator.

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 five parameters including enum values and weights. The description lists the same signals (adoption, sponsor strength, support sentiment, realised value) without adding syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Grade') and resource ('an account renewal'), lists the four weighted signals it considers, and adds that it quantifies ARR at risk. This clearly distinguishes it from generic scoring tools, though it does not name or contrast against any sibling tool.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implicit from the tool's name and purpose.

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