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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context by noting the tool 'does not recommend brands' and that 'product-label directions always take precedence,' which are practical limitations not covered by 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the usage trigger and includes a necessary caveat, making every word earn 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a critical limitation ('product-label directions always take precedence'). It does not explain how to choose among product categories or cleaning types, but schema enums and defaults mitigate this gap.

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 coverage is only 20% (2 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description partially compensates by outlining the output types (ready-to-use solution, concentrate, water, generic container quantities) but does not explain individual parameters. Parameter names and enums are mostly self-explanatory, justifying a mid-range score.

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 provides 'a planning estimate for ready-to-use cleaning solution, concentrate, water, or generic container quantities across one or many jobs.' This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools that estimate cleaning time/crew or cost, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 opens with 'Use this when a user needs...' which gives explicit conditions for invoking the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, though the sibling context makes this implicit.

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