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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation: the band gate is re-applied to the projected state so partial fixes can still leave a provider demoted, Kin Score facets are refused rather than estimated (with the count-based rationale), and per-call cost ($0.05, free in Understanding/Influence) is disclosed with a pointer to apis://prices. The read-only/simulation semantics are consistent with the 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?

Front-loaded with the tier label and the core action, then layers the band-gate insight and the refusal behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the pricing sentence plus the apis://prices pointer is slightly more overhead than the tool description strictly needs.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does at a conceptual level (projected score/band and whether the gate still demotes you). It is adequately complete for a 3-parameter simulation tool, though it could state whether the projected result is returned as a band only or as facet-level detail.

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 slug, fixes, and context are already fully documented in the schema, including the example ids and the pointer to what_can_i_fix. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: projecting a set of fixes onto a provider's agent-readiness score and band. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_agent_readiness (actual state) and what_can_i_fix (which fixes exist) by making clear this is a hypothetical projection, not a measurement.

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?

"before doing the work" gives clear timing context, and the refusal of Kin Score facets tells the agent a class of inputs it should not bother submitting. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (e.g. what_can_i_fix for valid ids, get_agent_readiness for current state) that an uncertain agent would want routed to.

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