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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete guarantees: no resources are sent, no job is launched, no credits are consumed. It also discloses an operational limit (multi-worker distribution unsupported above 5,000 files) that appears nowhere in the schema, which is genuine added value beyond the 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose first, then the non-execution guarantee, then the file-count limitation, then the zero-credit cost. Nothing is redundant with the title or repeated.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description does sketch the return (credit coverage plus worker-class distribution) and rules out side effects, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of describing the shape of the estimate, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so all three parameters, including the mode enum with its five values and cross-reference to vulkill_capabilities, are already documented. The description only restates that inputs are file and site counts, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: producing a credit-coverage and worker-class estimate from file and site counts. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like vulkill_start_scan and vulkill_check_credits by stating no resources are sent, no task starts, and no credits are spent, though it never names those alternatives.

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 makes clear this is a planning/dry-run tool ('Bu yalnız tahmindir') and lists when it does not apply (above 5,000 files for multi-worker distribution), but it never explicitly tells the agent to use this before vulkill_start_scan or instead of vulkill_check_credits, so routing between siblings is left partly to inference.

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