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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: the computation inputs (project context, estimated business days, preferred start) and the caveat that returned dates are indicative, not contractual. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g. start vs. end date fields).

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately after. The final disclaimer sentence earns its place, though the opening two clauses overlap slightly on "delivery window".

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 2-parameter read-only tool with an output schema absent, the description supplies the key missing piece by characterizing the return value as indicative dates and flagging the non-contractual nature. It does not enumerate which date fields come back, a small remaining gap.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the ASAP/null fallback for preferred_start. The description adds only a restatement that preferred start feeds the calculation, which is the expected baseline-3 level of added value.

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 and resource ("Check The2410's indicative delivery availability") and narrows scope to the customer's software project. No sibling tool touches delivery timing, so the agent can route here 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?

Explicitly names the triggering intent: "Use this tool when the user wants to know when The2410 could start the project and the approximate delivery window." It gives clear positive guidance but names no exclusions or alternatives among siblings.

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