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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it is a dry-run that does not execute, and it returns a rough cost estimate. Those are behavioral traits not derivable from the annotations. It stops at 4 because auth/permission needs and the shape of the cost estimate are not described.

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, zero filler, with the key scoping constraint ("WITHOUT running it") front-loaded right after the verb. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, but the description tells the agent what to expect back: what the analysis computes and a rough cost. For a read-only two-parameter tool this is largely complete, though it could say more about how the cost estimate is expressed.

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%, so the schema already documents both `name` and `params`. The description only implicitly references "a named analysis" and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Explain") and resource ("named analysis"), and the caps "WITHOUT running it" cleanly separates it from execution siblings like run_dashboard or render_analysis. An agent can distinguish it from the many analysis-running tools without opening a schema.

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 two concrete triggers: "before an expensive call" and "when the user asks how an analysis works." That is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name the alternative execution tool explicitly, so it stops just short of the top band.

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