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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a leak checklist, the extract required, and a fixed fee, which gives behavioral transparency about the output. It also implies the tool is advisory/analytical rather than destructive, but doesn't explicitly state permissions or side effects. Given no annotations, the description does provide substantial context, so a 4 is justified.

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 compact, three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes usage and return info efficiently. Slightly more could be said but it is well-structured and to the point.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively covers what it returns (leak checklist, extract, fee) and its purpose. It also lists the key parameters implicitly. The tool is illustrative in nature, so the description is complete enough for most use cases, though it could mention that it is a question-answering tool rather than a data tool.

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 high (100%) for 4 parameters, all with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'symptom' as what the company notices, 'industry' with examples). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, such as parameter constraints or relationships, so the 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 states a clear purpose: it explains what Bramvia's Profit Leak Audit would look for, including the magnitude of each leak and data needed. It specifies the verb 'explain' and the resource 'Profit Leak Audit', distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on profit leaks and audit explanation, not ERP health or compliance deadlines.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when someone asks where their margin is going, what is wrong with their business, or how to find hidden costs.' This helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools (e.g., assess_erp_health), but the use cases are clear enough.

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