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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by emphasizing that results are illustrative, based on user-supplied assumptions, and not guaranteed or financial advice. This is useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core function and then adding a necessary caveat. Every sentence 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 tool with six parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is too thin. It explains the high-level purpose but not how to choose or interpret parameters like automatableShare, implementationCost, or workingWeeks, nor the calculation basis behind the ROI estimate.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it mentions none of the six inputs. Even though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's names, types, and bounds.

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 identifies the verb ('estimate') and the resource ('reclaimable team capacity and illustrative payback'), going beyond the name and title. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool prioritize_automation_workflows, but the distinct verb and outcome make the purpose understandable.

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 gives a clear intended use ('operational planning') and an explicit non-use ('not guaranteed savings or financial advice'). It does not name an alternative tool or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use comparisons, but the stated context is sufficient for basic routing.

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