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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a pure local computation. The description adds the growth model (exponential) and that the sequence is bounded, which is real behavioral information not in the annotations, but it does not state the cap/default behavior or what the generated plan looks like.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the artifact front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant, though brevity here trades off against the missing parameter detail assessed elsewhere.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the returned plan's shape or units, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call it reliably. The safety profile is covered by annotations, but the computational contract is not.

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% and the description never explains attempts, initial_ms, or max_ms — units (milliseconds), defaults, and the upper bound relationship are left entirely unstated. 'Bounded' only vaguely hints that max_ms caps growth, so the description barely compensates for the documentation gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Generate') and a precise artifact ('bounded exponential retry plan'), scoped to 'transient failures'. That clearly tells an agent what the tool produces, though it does not distinguish it from any sibling retry/backoff tool.

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?

'for transient failures' hints at the applicable condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. a retry-risk or backoff-window sibling) and no statement of when not to use it. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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