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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions it creates a model and returns an ID, but doesn't disclose side effects, such as whether creating a model modifies any existing data, or any required prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in, specific permissions). It also doesn't mention if the creation is reversible or if there are any constraints on the inputs beyond the schema. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, a single sentence that states the action and the return value. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly improved by including key parameter details, but it's efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It tells you what it does and what it returns, but for a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks information about preconditions, side effects, and error scenarios. The description is adequate for basic understanding but not comprehensive for all contexts.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented with meaningful descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it relies on the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description doesn't add extra context (e.g., interaction between parameters or typical values), so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a new parametric cost model. It explicitly names the resource ('parametric cost model') and the verb ('create'), and it mentions the return value (model ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like estimate_part, which might also involve creating models, but overall it's clear.

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 implies the usage by stating the return ID is used by other tools, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when NOT to use this tool, such as when a user might need to estimate a part directly (estimate_part). The guidance is implicit: it's for creating a model for later cost calculations, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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