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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'model' without disclosing what the tool returns, how it computes costs, whether it is read-only, or any assumptions. This is a significant gap for a calculator with multiple configurable inputs.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but not appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters and no annotations. It under-specifies rather than efficiently conveying necessary information, similar to a placeholder.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a vague purpose and no information on inputs, outputs, or usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensate by explaining any parameters. It does not mention plan, users, hosting, support, training, or implementation scale, leaving the agent with only parameter names and enum values to infer meaning.

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 clear purpose: 'Model the multi-year total cost of Odoo.' It identifies the resource (Odoo) and the scope (multi-year total cost), which is enough to distinguish the tool's general function from single-cost calculators. However, it does not explicitly name any cost components or differentiate it from sibling tools like the implementation cost calculator.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent without criteria for selecting this calculator over other Odoo cost-related calculators.

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