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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: onboarding is one month of subtotal, licensing/add-ons are monthly-only, optionals without monthlyAmount become quoteSeparately, vendor commitments are monthly, and specific inclusions (e.g., Microsoft licensing includes Huntress IDTR). It also confirms 'stores nothing,' matching the annotations. This exceeds annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then expands into necessary calculation details. It is a bit dense but every sentence contributes meaningful information (onboarding, licensing, optionals, vendor commitments, inclusions, output, caveats). No filler words.

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's complexity (7 params, output schema present), the description covers the key calculation rules, output behavior, and disclaimers. It could mention prerequisites or relationships to the catalogue, but it sufficiently explains the estimation logic and 'not a formal quote' nature. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 7 parameters. The description references 'package quantities, catalogue add-ons, and optional wider-scope lines' but does not explicitly define sites, devices, businessUnits, fullTeamMembers, or emailOnlyTeamMembers. It adds some meaning for optionals (e.g., monthlyAmount behavior) but fails to adequately compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Calculates') and resource ('an indicative NZD managed-services estimate'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_managed_services_pricing_catalogue and get_tier1_recommendations by focusing on estimation rather than cataloguing or recommendations. The title 'Estimate Tier1 managed services pricing' reinforces this purpose.

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 usage context: it is for generating an indicative estimate and explicitly notes 'not a formal quote; stores nothing.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_managed_services_pricing_catalogue or get_tier1_recommendations, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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