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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed-world source, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations don't: the unit of the returned value (weeks), that each row carries an OEM/publisher and a date (provenance freshness), and that some adjacent data is paywalled.

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, front-loaded with the payload (lead time in weeks) before the optional filter and the paywall caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the long parenthetical class list is the only part that could be trimmed without losing much.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does it: unit, granularity (per class), and per-row metadata are all stated, and annotations cover safety. It does not mention result size or whether the full class list is always returned, a minor gap for a filtering tool.

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% on the single optional 'query' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare example by specifying the filter targets the class name (so the agent knows it filters rows by equipment class, not by OEM or date).

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Current published lead time, in weeks') and enumerates the exact equipment classes covered (transformers, switchgear, MCC, busway, gensets, ATS, drives). No sibling tool returns lead-time data, so the topical scope alone distinguishes it from get_price_bands, get_tariff_rates, get_large_load_terms, and the rest.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (factory and datacenter electrical equipment classes) and flags that 'Edition history and per-product OEM rows are paid', which tells the agent the boundary of what this call can return. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the paywalled data, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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