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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real substance beyond them: defaults are sourced or flagged as assumptions via input_sources, and projections are modelled estimates that must be quoted as a range rather than a single year. It says nothing about auth, rate limits or latency, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and the caveats sit at the end, with examples last. The enumeration of return fields (NPV, verdict, tornado, crossover range) is largely redundant given an output schema exists and is the main thing that could be trimmed.

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?

For a moderately complex tool with a nested inputs object and an output schema, the description covers the comparison model, the sourcing discipline and the projection caveat an agent needs to call and report correctly. Nothing critical is missing, though the country/region lists are duplicated with the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the 0-1 fraction convention and the regional preset codes. The description only restates the 22-job/8-country bounds and shows a few example overrides without explaining any of the ~33 nested input fields, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

A specific verb and resource: cost comparison of human labour against four robot options (buy, lease, RaaS, service provider) across 22 jobs and 8 countries. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as estimate_cost, compare_providers and get_prices because it names both the comparison axis and the job/country scope.

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?

Three concrete example invocations make the expected call shape and typical scenarios obvious, and the note on projections tells the agent how to present results. It never states when to prefer this over estimate_cost or compare_providers, so there is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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