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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It discloses the calculation model (dense peak × unit_count × utilization), the fixed bounds (0.7 and 1.15), the instruction to retain the bounds and is_estimated flag, and its limitations regarding facility verification. This is rich behavioral context that a caller needs.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the calculation and bounds follow, and the retention/limitations are compactly stated. 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?

The description covers the purpose, the calculation method, output bounds, the is_estimated flag, and points to methodology for named-facility edge cases. It lacks an explicit description of the full output structure (e.g., units, exact fields), but since the bounds and flag are mentioned, and no output schema exists, this is a minor gap. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to unit_count and utilization via the formula, and mentions precision and hardware configuration. However, it does not explain sparsity or precision beyond what the schema enums already convey, and the precision parameter lacks a schema description. The added formula justifies a 4, but it does not fully compensate for the undocumented precision parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Estimate hypothetical peak and sustained throughput for a user-specified hardware configuration and precision.' It names the specific verb (estimate) and resource (throughput), and it is distinct from all sibling tools, which handle entities, facilities, or search. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 context for when to use it: it's for hypothetical estimates, and it explicitly states what it does NOT do (verify facility inventory/availability/compliance) and points to separate requirements for named-facility estimates. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide an explicit 'use this when...' statement, leaving some inference to the agent.

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