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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), and 'Read-only and free' largely restates them. However, the description adds real context beyond annotations: the full status lifecycle, the meaning of 'blocked' (quota/billing) and 'polling' (assembly awaiting components), and the agent-specific default that analytics is omitted over MCP.

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 core action and then layered with lifecycle and return detail; most sentences earn their place. There is mild redundancy between the status list and the 'Read-only and free' tail that repeats the annotations, but it stays dense and purposeful.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (status, part revision, costing environment, lot size, material, result). The status lifecycle, polling guidance, and analytics default make it complete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (calculation_id and include_analytics) are already fully documented in the schema, including the MCP default. The description's note that 'analytics is left out unless include_analytics is true' echoes the schema rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 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 and resource ('Read one calculation') and enumerates exactly what it returns (status, inputs, costed result). It distinguishes itself from siblings by routing to explain_cost for a short cost answer and naming upload_and_quote/quote_part as the producers of the id.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to follow a calculation started by upload_and_quote or quote_part until status is final, lists the terminal statuses, gives polling cadence ('check again every few seconds'), and names the alternative (explain_cost) for short answers.

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