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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and need not be repeated. The description adds one useful behavioral fact not in the schema: the result is expressed in theoretical usage years. It says nothing about the calculation method, assumptions, or what comparison_rated_cycles does.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and behavior detail noted elsewhere.

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 three-parameter calculator with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the comparison parameter is unexplained, the output format/units of the result are only hinted at, and no calculation assumptions are stated.

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 loosely maps to two of three parameters ('supplied cycle ratings', 'daily complete cycles') but gives no units, formula role, or expected magnitudes, and completely omits the third parameter comparison_rated_cycles.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (theoretical usage years derived from cycle ratings and daily cycles), which is more precise than the vague title. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_installed_opener_quote or search_garage_door_knowledge, but the calculation framing is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling knowledge/search tools, and no prerequisites or context such as whether it is meant for spring lifespan estimation only. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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