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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses no behavioral traits. It doesn't mention assumptions, pricing model, output format, or any side effects. The tool is a complete black box.

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 (one sentence), which is concise in word count, but it is under-specified rather than optimally concise. Given the complexity of the tool (10 parameters, no output schema), this is not 'appropriately sized' – it lacks essential structure and detail.

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?

This is a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description provides only a one-line purpose, severely under-selling the tool's complexity. It is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with suitable inputs.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. All parameters (like years, source, volume) are left entirely to the schema enum names, which are insufficient for correct usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Estimate the cost to migrate to Odoo' clearly states the action (estimate) and the resource (cost to migrate to Odoo). It distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like implementation cost or upgrade cost calculators through the word 'migrate'. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of migration are included.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tool names imply alternatives but the description provides no direction.

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