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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds that it works before any provider account is connected and that credentials never affect ranking, only deployability. It also explains what the receipt contains, including inferred vs declared attributes and why each candidate lost. This goes well beyond the annotation flags and gives the agent a strong model of side-effect-free 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?

At roughly 130 words, the description is long but well-structured: purpose first, then behavioral guarantees, then usage guidance. Every sentence provides new information—credential independence, receipt contents, what-if use—so it is not padded. It could be tightened 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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the receipt includes: provider, plan, cost range, limits, inferred attributes, and why other candidates lost. It also covers pre-account behavior and readiness/unlock actions per alternative, fully equipping an agent to call it correctly. Nothing essential is missing for a preview-only tool.

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 already documents every parameter with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself only refers generically to 'placement hints' and does not add meaning to individual parameters. This is acceptable because the schema carries the full weight.

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 opens with 'Scores where SpringRoll would place this application and what it would cost, without deploying or writing anything,' a specific verb, resource, and scope. It explicitly contrasts with springroll.deploy by noting the shared implementation but this tool does not deploy. This makes it clearly distinguishable from every sibling 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 says to use it to put cost and limits in front of the user before deploying or to explore what-if variations, providing strong positive guidance. It does not explicitly name springroll.deploy as the alternative when actual deployment is desired, but the repeated 'without deploying' framing makes that inference immediate. An explicit exclusion would push this to a 5.

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