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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the data source (Hackett Group and BLS composite), the target audience (CFO/treasury), and the cost per call ($0.02 USDC). It does not describe output format or pagination, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 four sentences, each adding value: use case, metric list, data source, and cost/audience. It is front-loaded with the 'Use when' statement and contains no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent receives (e.g., benchmark values, a report, or a score). It does not describe the return structure, but it covers the key selection criteria (metrics, dimensions, source, cost) sufficiently for a simple benchmark 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the benchmark is 'by industry and company size,' mapping to the two parameters. It does not elaborate on enum values or which are required, but those are visible in the schema, so the added meaning is adequate though not thorough.

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 the tool benchmarks working capital efficiency, naming specific metrics (DSO, DPO, DIO, CCC) and the dimensions of industry and company size. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic benchmark siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 first sentence provides explicit guidance: 'Use when benchmarking working capital efficiency or preparing a CFO cash management brief.' This gives a clear use case, but it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives.

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