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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine context on top: the estimate is based on 30% off list over a fixed three-year term and it also surfaces the enrolment deadline and conditions. It stops short of stating what the estimate excludes (taxes, currency basis, list-price source), which would matter for a pricing tool.

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 compact sentences: the first establishes the offer and eligibility, the second states exactly what comes back. It is front-loaded with the identifying information and contains 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?

For a low-complexity calculation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return payload (annual and three-year savings, deadline, conditions) and the eligibility rules. Minor gaps remain around what the figures exclude and how region affects the amount, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already explains plan, region, full_users and team_members. The description only alludes to 'the given user mix' without adding meaning about how the full vs team-member split drives the calculation, so baseline 3 applies.

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 object ('Estimate the value of Microsoft Bridge to Cloud 3') and scopes it to a named audience and move (Dynamics NAV or GP customer moving to Business Central Online). The offer mechanics (30% off list, fixed three-year term) make it clearly distinct from siblings like estimate_migration or check_nav_support_status.

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 gives clear qualifying context: use it for a NAV or GP customer moving to Business Central Online. It does not, however, name the adjacent alternatives (estimate_migration, check_nav_support_status) or state when this is the wrong tool, so routing among similar estimates is left to inference.

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