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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the connector has no sizing capability, preventing an agent from misusing it as a calculator; it adds little else about the response shape, which is fine for a text-only guidance tool.

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?

Two sentences, with the critical negation front-loaded so an agent cannot miss it. There is minor redundancy between 'NO online sizing tool' and 'cannot size a system', but each targets a different actor (vendor vs connector), so it mostly earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it is not, what it is, and the concrete inputs a customer must provide. Nothing required to call or interpret it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the schema to document. The description uses the space well by naming the data the customer must supply (load, runtime, voltage), which is the only 'input' concept relevant to this tool.

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 clearly states this is an informational tool: it does NOT size a system and instead explains the manual path to getting one sized. That distinguishes it from siblings like quote_request, though it does so by describing a process rather than naming the sibling tool directly.

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 sets a clear expectation of when to use it (when a customer needs sizing guidance) and explicitly rules out what it cannot do (size a system). It points at the quote-request path with the required inputs, but never names the quote_request sibling, so the handoff is implied rather than explicit.

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