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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the computational model (starts from a class band in the autumn 2026 price book, adjusts for year, hours, grade, power-state) and the output shape (low, point, high). It still omits whether the tool is read-only/side-effect free, units/currency of the returned numbers, and error behavior.

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 the core purpose and return shape in the first sentences, with zero filler. Mild redundancy in re-listing the year range and grade/power values that the schema already defines verbatim.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description names the three returned values (low, point, high), and with 5 required, fully-described parameters the call is unambiguous. Remaining gaps are secondary: currency/units of the result and any failure modes.

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 enums are richly documented in the schema itself (grade A/B/C meanings, power sound/unknown/needs-work, year 1998-2026). The description largely restates those ranges and enum values rather than adding new meaning, 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 verb and resource ('Screen a truck'), explains the derivation basis (autumn 2026 price book class band plus year/hours/grade/power adjustments) and the return shape (low/point/high). It does not explicitly name any sibling (e.g. get_price_band) to differentiate itself, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 frames the scope with exclusions: 'A screen, not an appraisal and not a bid,' which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. It gives no positive trigger conditions or named alternatives among desk_terms/get_price_band/illustrate_financing, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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