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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the values are fixed constants of the dedicated-server default profile (subject to per-server ConVar overrides) and no computation happens server-side — meaningful caveats for interpreting the numbers.

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 first sentence front-loads the topic and the bracket math follows in a single dense but ordered pass. It is longer than a typical description, but with no output schema the enumeration of bracket tiers and `decay_hours` earns its space.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does: bracket boundaries, blended-rate semantics, per-grade decay durations, and the `blocks` null = unbounded convention. Only minor gaps remain (exact field names/types of the response envelope, whether values are per-grade keyed objects).

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 under the rubric. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies that.

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 names a specific data resource — upkeep decay brackets and decay times — and enumerates the exact fields (`brackets`, `decay_hours`) and ConVars it reports, so an agent can tell this is a static constants lookup distinct from tools like get_raid_costs or get_building_piece. It lacks an explicit verb ("returns"/"fetches") and never directly names a sibling, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for reasoning about base upkeep costs, and the note "as most servers run them" hints at when the defaults apply. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is offered, so guidance remains minimal.

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