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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output statistics (P50, P80, P90), input uncertainties (material price, labour rate, cycle time), and the operational context (per-unit cost-at-risk). This goes beyond a minimal definition, though it omits potential side effects or error behavior.

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 sentences capture the action, methodology, outputs, and use case without fluff. Information is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, method, outputs, and usage context, which is sufficient for a tool with only three well-documented parameters. Minor omissions like default currency or handling of unsupported country codes are non-critical given the clarity elsewhere.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds modest context by referring to 'natural language' but does not elaborate on batchQty or countryCode behavior beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('estimate'), resource ('should-cost of a manufactured part'), and method ('Monte Carlo simulation'). It differentiates itself from siblings by noting this is for 'quick feasibility checks before building a full cost model.'

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 provides an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use this for quick feasibility checks before building a full cost model.' However, it does not name specific sibling tools or enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving some routing to inference.

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