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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a pure calculation, what the output represents, any limitations, or assumptions. It merely defines the concept of carrying cost.

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 extremely short, but it is an incomplete sentence fragment rather than a concise, well-structured statement. Brevity here is under-specification, not effective conciseness, as it omits critical action and context.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description must provide full context to be useful. It fails to explain the formula, the return value, or when to apply it, leaving the agent with almost no actionable information.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (avgInventoryValue, carryingRatePercent) or how they combine to produce the result. It adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names and defaults already visible in 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 'Annual cost of holding inventory' is a noun phrase that restates the tool's name without an explicit verb like 'calculate' or 'compute'. It does not clearly state what action the tool performs, making it close to a tautology.

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 the many sibling inventory calculators (e.g., inventory-turnover-calculator, reorder-point-calculator, economic-order-quantity-calculator). No context, prerequisites, or alternative distinctions are provided.

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