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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the two outputs the calculation produces but says nothing about return format, units, or edge cases (e.g., zero reps), which would be useful for a compute tool with no output schema.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, but the trailing 'See the full version at <URL>' is a promotional pointer that does not help an agent invoke the tool and dilutes the signal.

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 six-parameter, all-required pure calculator with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate: it names both computed results. Missing return-value detail is acceptable given no output schema and full parameter documentation.

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 each of the six inputs is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, units, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: it computes monthly inbound volume an SDR team can cover and the rep count needed to cover current inbound. This is clear and concrete, though it never distinguishes itself from adjacent capacity siblings like customer_success_capacity_planner.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related planners and calculators in the sibling set, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only pointer is a promotional link, not usage direction.

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