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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes the smallest suitable plan derived from expected minutes, but says nothing about what an incompatible result looks like (empty result vs error) or how partial inputs are handled.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the outcome clause at the end; every clause maps to a distinct input or output dimension with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description does hint at the return (smallest suitable plan), but leaves format questions open and does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage on the string parameters. For a four-parameter tool with no parameter docs, a bit more format guidance would be expected.

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 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters, and it does name each (country, industry template, required capabilities, monthly minutes). However it omits format constraints the schema enforces silently: country is a 2-character code and industry must match a template name, both of which an agent could easily get wrong.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check whether VoiceDesk AI fits a business') and enumerates the four fit dimensions plus the plan-sizing outcome. It is clearly distinct from create_demo_request/get_demo_status, though the overlap with get_pricing (which plans are suitable) is not addressed.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: capability ids must come from get_services, which routes the agent correctly. It does not say when to prefer this over get_pricing or what to do if the agent lacks country/industry data, so no explicit exclusions are offered.

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