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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real context: the AI/telemedicine plan is a flat ₦30,000/month and the Free Hospital Suite is ₦0, and the comparison baseline is legacy per-seat/per-bed EMRs. However, it never states what the result looks like (savings figure, breakdown, assumptions like currency/period) or that the tool is read-only/non-mutating, which matters given zero annotation coverage.

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 that leads with the verb and keeps the price anchors in parentheses. Slightly dense with promotional framing ('Free Hospital Suite'), but every clause carries selection-relevant information.

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 two-parameter, entirely optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what is returned (TCO breakdown vs single savings number) and any assumptions. It conveys the pricing inputs but leaves the output and assumptions undefined.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the ₦30,000/month flat-fee implication of include_ai_telemedicine. The description largely restates those figures rather than adding new semantics (e.g., how staff_seats feeds the TCO math), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 two specific verbs (retrieve pricing, calculate 3-year TCO) on a named resource (DokiTab Naira subscription tiers) and contrasts them with per-seat/per-bed legacy EMRs. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculators like calculate_nhia_copay or calculate_pediatric_dosage.

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 scope implies the use case (facility cost comparison over a 3-year horizon), but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over the other cost/calc siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer selection from the tool name and description alone.

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