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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait the structured fields cannot: a per-call cost of 1 credit, plus what the output contains (total XP and per-level time estimates). It does not cover determinism, rate limits, or whether the defaults produce a sensible table.

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 sentences: the core capability is front-loaded with the curve options inline, and the cost note is isolated at the end where it belongs. No filler, though the packed second clause is slightly dense.

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?

For a five-parameter calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the headline output and one operational trait (cost), which is enough to invoke it correctly. It leaves gaps on defaults, parameter roles, and the shape/units of the returned table.

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 only 20% (just 'growth'), so the description needs to compensate and largely does not. The curve enumeration merely restates the schema enum, and the xp_per_hour role is hinted at ('at a given XP-per-hour pace'), but levels and base_xp are given no meaning at all despite being free parameters with wide ranges.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Generate a level-up XP table') and names the supported curve families, which is concrete and clearly distinct from neighboring utilities like loot_table or dice_roller. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 mention of XP-per-hour pacing and curve choice suggests a game-balancing/progression-design context, but there is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. Adequate but not explicit.

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