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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: the data is split by material and statutory stage and contains thresholds only, with no applicability interpretation — a real boundary on what the caller receives.

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?

Front-loaded with labeled Purpose/Guidelines/Limits/Ex sections and no filler, so the routing information lands first. Slightly formulaic and the 'Ex:' call with no arguments adds little, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to establish scope and routing — which it does fully. Material coverage, stage split, and limits on interpretation are all stated, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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% and all three parameters (keyword, language, response_format) are documented in the schema, including enums and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. which material strings are valid), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (recycled-content minimums) with enumerated materials (cobalt, lead, lithium, nickel) and the scope split (two statutory stages). An agent can distinguish this domain-result tool from sibling calculators like calculate_recycled_content_gap without opening the 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 when to use it ('threshold questions'), names the alternative and pairing pattern ('pair with calculate_recycled_content_gap to compare against an actual figure'), and states an exclusion ('no interpretation of how they apply to a specific battery'). When, when-not, and the sibling relationship are all covered.

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