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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is deterministic, computes before execution, and is a paid resource with a specific price ($0.002 USD per call). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand cost and execution semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The exclusion and pricing info are useful but the sentence 'Do not use it for unrelated general knowledge or unsupported legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication' is somewhat boilerplate and could be trimmed. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a planning tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description gives a good sense of what it computes but leaves the agent without details on input structure or return format. The pricing and determinism notes help, but the missing parameter semantics and output description create a clear gap.

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 does not explain the 'calls' or 'quotas' parameters beyond their names. The description mentions 'per-provider demand, quota headroom and bottleneck calls' but does not map these to the input parameters. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Computes'), a clear resource ('per-provider demand, quota headroom and bottleneck calls'), and a precise scope ('before execution'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its deterministic capacity-planning role, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 states when to use: 'when determine whether a planned agent workload fits known provider quotas and identify the exact quota bottleneck before requests are sent.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Do not use it for unrelated general knowledge or unsupported legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication.' This is strong routing guidance.

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