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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral model of how the projection is composed, but says nothing about output format or edge cases with annotations already carrying the rest.

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 dense and front-loaded, mapping the computation cleanly. The second sentence is a marketing link to the 'full version' which does not help an agent invoke the tool and dilutes the definition.

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 pure four-parameter calculator with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It does not describe the returned value (no output schema exists), leaving the agent to infer the response shape.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes the same inputs (base cycle, stakeholder count, compliance gate) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (project) and resource (total deal cycle length), and describes the additive model (stakeholder count + compliance gates on a base cycle). This distinguishes it from neighbors like contract_redline_duration_predictor or pipeline_velocity_equation_engine, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 the calculation model but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the sibling list that this is the cycle-length tool rather than a pipeline-velocity or contract-timeline tool.

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