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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that is not in the annotations: the result is deterministic (repeatable for the same inputs) and decorrelated (independent bounds across attempts). It does not explain whether the returned bounds are in milliseconds or what happens if cap_ms or base_ms are omitted, which is a real gap for a calculation tool.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. Brevity is appropriate here, though the same one sentence could have carried parameter units without becoming bloated.

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 tool has 3 parameters at 0% coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond safety hints. The definition does not say what the return shape is, what units are used, or what defaults apply. For a calculation tool whose output feeds retry logic, this is under-specified 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for attempt, base_ms, and cap_ms, but it does not explain any of them. Units, whether base_ms and cap_ms are optional, and how they interact with attempt are left entirely unstated. The only implicit signal is the word 'attempt', which is weak compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate decorrelated deterministic lower/upper jitter bounds for a retry attempt.' That is enough for an agent to distinguish a jitter-bound calculation from sibling window tools such as privi_expiry_window or privi_circuit_decide. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not differentiated by name.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not say to call this before a retry, nor does it mention related tools such as circuit-decide or batch-plan, or what conditions select this tool over them.

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