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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it warns that no sizing is performed online and that this connector does not compute a result, which prevents an agent from treating output as a sizing answer. It does not describe the shape of the returned guidance.

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 short sentences with the most important fact — that this is not a sizing engine — front-loaded. Mild redundancy between 'NO online sizing tool' and 'cannot size a system', but each sentence still 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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, this covers what an agent needs: what the tool is not, what it returns, and the next step. The only gap is the absence of an explicit hand-off to the 'quote_request' sibling by name.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema carries no burden. The description helpfully lists the three inputs the customer must supply to the engineers (load, runtime, voltage), which is extra semantic value even though those are not tool parameters.

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 plainly that this is an informational/instructions tool and explicitly negates the expectation set by the name 'sizing_tool' — it says the connector cannot size a system. It then describes the actual content (the process for getting a system sized). It is clear, though it never quite says 'this tool returns guidance rather than results' in a single direct phrase.

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?

It establishes the trigger condition (a customer needs a system sized) and routes the agent to the correct path — sending load, runtime and voltage with a quote request, which maps to the sibling 'quote_request'. It does not name the sibling tool explicitly or state when not to call this tool, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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