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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the band gate is re-applied to the projected state, and Kin Score facets are refused rather than estimated. It also surfaces pricing/tier context, which is not available in the schema.

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 dense but purposeful, front-loading the primary purpose before caveats and pricing. The pricing/tier sentence is useful for invocation decisions, though it could arguably be trimmed or moved to a reference link.

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 read-only simulation tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand inputs, core behavior, refusal cases, and cost. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the score/band projection and band-gate reapplication are stated, which is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 schema already documents fixes and context well (67% coverage), and the description adds useful nuance about what counts as a claimable fix and where the list of options lives. However, the required 'slug' parameter is left implicit as 'provider', and no additional syntax or examples are provided 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'project a set of fixes onto a provider's agent-readiness score and band before doing the work.' It also clarifies the tool is a simulation/influence action, distinguishing it from read-only readiness getters and from fix-listing siblings like what_can_i_fix.

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?

It states when to use it ('before doing the work') and the insight it yields ('when buying points still leaves you demoted'). It does not name sibling alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so it misses the top tier of explicit routing guidance.

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