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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool computes without storing anything, implying a safe, side-effect-free operation, and lists the computed outputs. It could add more detail about failure modes or edge cases, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first delivers the core function and outputs, the second gives usage examples, the third names the alternative. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description names the key return values (dates, critical path, float, project end), which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It also covers when to use the tool and how it relates to create_gantt. Minor missing details about output formatting or performance are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only that the input shape matches create_gantt and that 'name' is optional. This is minor value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('a schedule'), names the exact outputs (dates, critical path, float, project end), and explicitly distinguishes it from create_gantt by noting the same input shape but different purpose. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It gives concrete example questions the tool answers ('what is the critical path?', 'when would this finish?', 'how much slack does X have?') and explicitly directs users to the sibling tool create_gantt when they need a chart. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is clear and direct.

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