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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the standard, AQL levels, and inspection level, but it does not explain the return shape or whether 'connect with ... partner network' is informational or a side effect, leaving some ambiguity.

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 front-loads the calculation and packs the standard details efficiently into one sentence. The partner-network clause is promotional and not needed for invocation, which prevents a 5.

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 two-parameter calculator with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides enough to call it and interpret the headline output. It is less complete on result format and on when to escalate to a consultation, so 4 rather than 5.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description contextualizes lot_size as production batch quantity but adds no syntax, constraints, or additional meaning for city beyond the 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 description uses a specific verb, 'Calculate', and a specific resource, 'sample size and accept/reject limits', pinned to ISO 2859-1 with AQL levels and inspection level. The China production-batch context makes it distinguishable from the service/booking siblings, though the trailing partner-network phrase slightly blurs whether it also performs a referral.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is for AQL inspection planning on a China production batch. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with book_consultation_or_quote or get_services_and_pricing, so an agent must infer that this is the calculator rather than the commercial follow-up.

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