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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the free quota and per-IP rate limit (200/day) plus the explicit return payload, which is useful, but it does not say what happens when observed_runout_days is omitted or how the cadence is derived.

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?

Three tight sentences: input, output, then commercial terms. The example product code is embedded where it is needed and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With only three parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies inputs, return fields and rate-limit terms. The one gap, the meaning of category, is minor against an otherwise complete picture.

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 is formally 100% covered, but only with tautological descriptions ('sku': 'sku'), so the real semantics come from the definition: sku is a product code like EHE-CREA-005 and observed_runout_days is how long the last unit lasted, used to compute runout. The category parameter is never explained in either place, which keeps it off a 5.

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 specific transformation: it takes a product code plus optional observed runout days and returns days of supply, a suggested delivery cadence in weeks, and reasoning. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from ehe_about, ehe_pricing and usage_get without opening the schema, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'if you have it' signals that observed_runout_days is optional and that the tool works with just a SKU, which is real conditional guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over the pricing or usage siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond that hint.

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