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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the outputs (annual and three-year savings, enrolment deadline, conditions) and key terms, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any assumptions or limitations. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail beyond the outputs.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then packs in the key commercial details and outputs. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficiently structured.

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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description names the return values (annual/three-year savings, deadline, conditions) and the input domain. It omits specifics like units or formatting, but given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to repeat them. It does add the phrase 'given user mix' which hints at the interaction between parameters, but this adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 precisely identifies the tool's purpose: estimating savings for Bridge to Cloud 3 for Dynamics NAV/GP customers migrating to Business Central Online, including the 30% discount and three-year term. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'estimate_migration' by focusing on savings rather than migration aspects.

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 explicitly states the target scenario (NAV/GP moving to Business Central Online) and the promotional specifics (30% off list, three-year term), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or direct to alternatives, but the context is strong enough to place it above a generic 3.

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