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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the production time (5–7 working days, excluding transit and peak seasons), the output fields, and a critical rule ('Never quote a final delivery date'). It also labels the summary as 'safe to share with the customer,' adding confidence about its safe usage. While it does not describe error handling or edge cases, it covers the essential behaviors.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the output, then provides usage guidance, all in three sentences. There is no repetition of schema details or irrelevant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns (dispatch_date, production_days, summary) and the constraints (5–7 days, no final delivery date). It could mention what happens for past/future dates or invalid input, but for this simple estimation tool, the core information is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides a thorough description of the only parameter (order_date: ISO date, defaults to today), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds context about how the date is used (production lead time), but it does not add substantive semantics beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'Explain the production lead time for a new order.' It specifies the resource (delivery estimate) and the verb (explain/get), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on new-order production lead time rather than order management or catalog queries. The mention of returning dispatch_date, production_days, and a summary further clarifies its unique scope.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when a customer asks 'when will it arrive?' to give an honest production timeline.' It also gives an exclusion: 'Never quote a final delivery date.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for existing orders (e.g., 'get_order') or state when not to use this tool, leaving some room for inference.

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