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

The description adds behavioral context by explaining the logic of the estimation (e.g., that daily copies are increments while weekly/monthly are full backups). This helps the agent understand the underlying mathematical assumption of the tool, complementing the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 tool uses a single, highly dense, and logically structured sentence. There is no extraneous information, making it maximally concise while conveying all necessary context.

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?

Given the complexity of defining a specific retention strategy, the description provides all necessary high-level context about the model's assumptions, allowing the agent to use the tool correctly for its intended estimation purpose.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is vital. It provides the essential semantic meaning to the input parameters by linking them to the G-F-S model (daily copies are increments, monthly copies are full), making the tool usable even without detailed schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose is highly specific: to estimate backup storage. It clearly defines the functional context by naming the 'grandfather-father-son retention plan,' which distinguishes it from generic storage calculation 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?

While the description clarifies the specific model it utilizes, it lacks explicit usage guidelines. It doesn't state when to use this tool relative to other estimation tools, nor does it provide instructions on potential edge cases or limitations of the G-F-S plan model.

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