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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what is computed (lost bookings and revenue) and the inputs used, without contradicting the annotations. It doesn't detail output formatting or edge cases, but that's acceptable given the output schema.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Estimate lost bookings and revenue') and follows with the inputs. There is no filler, and every word contributes meaning. The structure is exemplary for a simple estimation tool.

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?

The tool is moderate in complexity and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the purpose and inputs, and given the read-only annotations, an agent has sufficient information to call it correctly. Minor gaps like exact methodology or typical use cases are not essential.

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 coverage is 100% for all four parameters, with each having a clear description (e.g., unit, range, meaning). The description merely lists three of them ('lead volume, average value, average response time') without adding nuance or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('lost bookings and revenue at risk'), and lists the inputs (lead volume, average value, response time). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the broader set of run_ diagnostic tools by focusing on response-time impact, which is unique among siblings.

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 states the tool's function but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or provide exclusions. Usage is only implied: an agent would use this when concerned about response-time-related losses, but that inference is not made explicit.

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