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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that ratings do not add linearly, supports bilateral factor, returns step-by-step breakdown, and is a deterministic estimate. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key behaviors, then disclaimer. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the algorithm, official reference, bilateral factor, output structure, and deterministic nature. An output schema exists, so return values are handled. Minor omission: max items limit is in schema but not in description.

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?

The input schema is fully documented with descriptions for percent, label, and bilateral. The description adds context about the formula and rounding but does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool calculates a veteran's VA combined disability rating from individual ratings using the official formula. It specifies the verb 'calculate' and resource 'combined rating' and distinguishes itself from siblings which are about conditions, appeals, or reps, with no similar calculation tool.

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 implies usage for combining disability ratings with examples and formula details. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but given no similar siblings, the context is clear.

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