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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context that the output is a planning range rather than a quote, but it does not describe calculation assumptions, currency, or return format.

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 efficient sentences, with the important 'not a quote' qualifier front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to use it, though further structure or detail could still fit without becoming bloated.

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 budget-estimation tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is thin. It omits output format, currency, calculation basis, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent with significant unanswered questions before invocation.

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 parameter meaning. It merely enumerates the four inputs (headcount, months, track, cities) without explaining units, allowed values, or how cities and track affect the estimate, adding almost nothing beyond the schema's property names.

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 states a specific resource and scope: planning ranges for Dutch training for a team, built from headcount, months, track and cities. The 'not a quote' qualifier helps distinguish this from a quoting tool, though no sibling tool is named to differentiate it explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'Use it for HR or employer questions about cost.' It also provides an implicit when-not by saying 'not a quote', steering agents away from treating the result as binding pricing. No alternative tool is named for related cases.

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