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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the output (1% lows and bottleneck component) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, data source, or edge cases. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds moderate value but is not rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core action, and includes specific output details (1% lows and bottleneck). No filler or redundancy. It earns its place efficiently.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the key output components (frame rates, 1% lows, bottleneck). It also implies a multi-game scope. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., whether it returns a list per game or a summary), nor does it mention default values for optional parameters, though these are in the schema. The description is fairly complete for the tool's purpose, but a slightly more explicit output structure would improve it.

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 100%, so every parameter (cpu, gpu, game, market, setting, resolution) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only hints at 'resolution and quality preset' which matches the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') with a clear resource ('frame rates for a CPU + GPU pairing') and adds detail about games, resolution, quality, and output (1% lows and bottleneck). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_pc and check_compatibility, which focus on construction and compatibility.

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 implies the tool is for performance estimation but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when to avoid it. It gives clear context ('across popular games at a chosen resolution and quality preset') but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing. This is a minor gap given the obvious differentiation from the sibling tools.

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