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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: classification is deterministic with no inference, and misses return no suggestion rather than guessing — exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to interpret empty results.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the caveat. Nothing redundant relative to the small amount of information conveyed.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, but the undefined free-form 'activity' input object is the tool's whole interface and remains entirely undocumented. For a nested, fully undocumented required parameter, the description should at minimum sketch the expected activity shape.

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?

There is a single required parameter, 'activity', typed as a free-form object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema description coverage and nested structure. The description says nothing about what fields that object should carry (activity type, quantity, unit, region), so an agent cannot construct a valid call from the definition alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Suggest') and concrete outputs ('scope and Scope 3 category') drawn from a 'bundled deterministic map', which is far more specific than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like calculate_inventory or get_factor_pack, so an agent must infer that this is the pre-calculation classification step.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool suggests a scope/category, which an agent would reasonably use before calculate_inventory, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated. The note that unknown activity types return no suggestion is a useful edge-case cue but is not framed as routing guidance.

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