get_nable_roi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool shows a comparison of savings vs cost, but does not disclose if it is read-only, data freshness, permissions needed, or any limitations. The promotional line about other tools is not behavioral.

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 structured well with a summary, usage triggers, and args section. The promotional line adds some fluff but is not excessive. Could be slightly more concise.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains purpose, when to use, and the parameter. However, it lacks return value details or 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?

Only one parameter period_days with a default. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'Lookback window for savings (default 90 days)'. This is minimal but adequate. Could specify allowed range or units.

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 shows ROI from using nable, specifically savings found, acted on, and verified versus cost. It explicitly says this is unique to nable, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit use cases as questions like 'Is nable worth it?' and states the report is unique. However, it does not specify when not to use or list alternative tools for similar queries.

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