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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one useful behavior—missing inputs fall back to documented defaults—and the calculator framing implies a non-mutating computation, but side-effect status, prerequisites, and return format are left unspecified.

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 and front-loaded: it states the action first, follows with a tight output list, and closes with a single behavioral note. No phrase is wasted, though the output list is somewhat dense.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description lists the computed result areas but does not define domain terms like 'fixed week' or 'two-week window', nor explain the output format or return shape. It is adequate for simple calls with defaults but leaves an agent guessing on edge cases.

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%, with each of the five parameters having its own default, range, and explanation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a generic statement about default fallback, which is already visible in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the exact resource ('Driver capacity planner calculator'), then enumerates four distinct capacity outputs. This clearly places the tool as the computation entry point relative to the describe/enquiry siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculator_describe or enquiry tools. The output list implies a capacity-planning use case, but selection context and exclusions are left to inference.

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