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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: deterministic, offline, no live clock, no identity resolution, and a per-call cost. No contradiction exists; the description significantly enhances transparency.

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: the first states the purpose with a clear verb and outcome, the second covers offline/deterministic behavior and cost. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundant schema repetition.

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's complexity is moderate, and the schema plus annotations are rich. The description covers the core classification logic and alludes to output categories, but it does not explicitly describe the output format (e.g., a per-row list with statuses). Given the lack of an output schema, a slightly more explicit mention of return structure would make it more complete, but the current coverage is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not repeat parameter details and adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides. The phrase 'explicit UTC timestamp' aligns with asOf, but it doesn't enrich the semantics of rows, schemaVersion, or asOf further that the schema doesn't already state.

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 ('Classify') and a clear resource ('buyer-supplied schedule rows'), and defines the three output states (met, missed, open). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by its focus on SLA classification and its deterministic/offline nature, even without naming alternatives.

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 provides meaningful context by stating the tool is deterministic, offline, never fetches a clock, and never resolves to a person/company. This implies when to use it (when deterministic offline classification is needed) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full guidelines.

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