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

The description states 'Pure static text — no engine call, deterministic output,' which goes beyond annotations that already mark it as read-only and idempotent. It confirms the tool's behavior without contradiction, adding value by explaining that no external computation occurs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key purpose. It lists specific topics covered, which is informative but slightly verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the detail level could be trimmed without losing clarity. Still, it earns its length.

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?

Given no parameters, good annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (conceptual text), when to use it, and even notes the supporting engine and demo. No gaps remain for an agent to understand this conceptual 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not. No additional semantics are required, and the description appropriately focuses on the output content.

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 that the tool provides 'reference text on greenfield analysis' and lists specific mathematical formulations and concepts it covers. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'get_greenfield_result' and 'describe_greenfield_demo' which serve different purposes (computation vs. demo description).

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks a conceptual "how does greenfield analysis work" or "where would I put my DCs" question.' It also contrasts greenfield vs facility selection, providing clear decision guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use is needed as the context is clear.

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