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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context beyond that: it is free, collects no contact details, creates no entitlement, and does not start a purchase — exactly the side-effect concerns an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool produces and from what inputs, the second immediately disambiguates cost and side effects. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the read-only/idempotent profile. The description covers purpose and non-effects well, but omits any statement of when this tool should be preferred over the pricing or catalog siblings, which is the one remaining gap for a four-parameter 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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the schema already documents three of the four parameters. Naming the inputs in prose ('live-call volume, team size, recurring use, SLA needs') maps loosely onto expected_monthly_live_calls, team_seats, recurring_days_per_month, and needs_sla, but adds no units, ranges, or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('sales-assisted Blocksize account plan') and enumerates the four inputs that drive the recommendation, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest-sounding sibling, get_pricing_info, leaving a small ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'from expected live-call volume, team size, recurring use, and SLA needs' hints at the scenario (plan sizing before purchase), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against get_pricing_info or get_product_catalog. An agent can infer the context but gets no routing guidance.

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