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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the connector does not perform sizing, the user must run the tool, and results are provisional until engineering confirms. It does not specify the exact return shape (bare URL string vs. an object with a location), which is the only gap.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded, so the agent can decide quickly. The clause 'and where the website links it' is vague and mildly wasteful, but nothing else is padding.

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 link tool with no output schema, the description covers what it is, who runs it, and how much to trust the result. Only the literal return format is left unspecified, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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 makes clear that this tool returns a link to an external battery-sizing web tool rather than computing a size, which separates it from siblings like get_documents or quote_request. The phrasing 'the online tool ... and where the website links it' is a bit roundabout about exactly what is returned, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 customer runs it themselves; this connector cannot' and 'A starting point only: engineers confirm every size before it is quoted' give clear context for when this is the right call and set expectations that it is not an authoritative answer. It does not explicitly route the agent elsewhere (e.g., to quote_request for an actual quote), which keeps it at 4.

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