calculate_pace_layer_drag

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context: 'Pure deterministic calculation — no network, auth, or side effects,' reinforcing safety and idempotency. No contradiction with annotations; it adds value beyond them.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: definition, usage, and output/nature. It is front-loaded with the core concept and contains no unnecessary words. 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 the tool has 4 parameters, output schema exists, and the description lists all return values (EUR low/high, drag rate, pace_gap severity, drivers, source), plus the deterministic nature, it provides complete context for an agent to invoke correctly without needing additional information.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. It mentions ranges and enums but doesn't elaborate on parameter relationships or formatting. Thus, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 calculates 'annual Organisational Drag Cost' and distinguishes it from the cost of AI build. It specifies the exact return values (EUR range, drag rate, pace_gap severity, drivers, source), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like score_initiative or validate_portfolio.

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 explicitly says 'Use to quantify the cost of NOT changing the operating model,' providing a clear when-to-use. It also says 'NOT the cost of the AI build,' which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use or compare to sibling tools, slightly lowering the score from 5.

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