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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the calculation formula, WiFi factor, safety buffer, and rounding behavior, but does not describe output format or edge cases.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the formula and all key modifiers. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only calculator with no output schema, the formula and title imply a numeric MB estimate, but the description never states the return unit/format or the behavior of the optional wifi parameter. It is usable but leaves some important context implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps days, activities, and wifi into the formula, but does not define the WiFi factor values or the default when wifi is omitted. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 title clearly says the tool estimates how much data a trip needs, and the description gives the exact formula used. This distinguishes it from the sibling planning/search tools, though the description itself relies on the title for the verb and resource.

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 alternatives like recommend_plan or search_plans. The formula implies a data-estimation use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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