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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds output details (returns target carbs, gel count, timing) but doesn't disclose any algorithmic behavior or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and output. The phrase 'core FuelCenter tool' is minor extra but not wasteful. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Complex tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description states the key return values and the schema fully documents inputs. Given the rich schema and simple read-only nature, the description is largely sufficient, though it could mention interaction with related tools.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond listing general outputs, which aligns with 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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Build a minute-by-minute race or long-run fueling plan' and lists key outputs (target carbs/hour, gel count, schedule, total carbs). It distinguishes from siblings by its focus on plan generation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like gel-comparison.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or explicit comparison to sibling tools. 'This is the core FuelCenter tool' implies centrality but doesn't explain when to choose this over carb-loading, hydration, or gel-comparison. Users must infer usage from the description.

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