Get Upgrade Justification

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: it analyzes usage patterns, calculates optimization potential, and provides a structured recommendation with projected savings. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about the tool's output and processing.

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 two sentences: the first covers purpose and functionality, the second gives a clear negative use case. No unnecessary words, well-structured with key information upfront.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, process, and a usage guideline. It distinguishes from related siblings. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the output format, but it is still sufficiently complete.

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% for the only parameter (period_days). The description does not add any new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3.

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 generates an ROI report for upgrading from Starter to Lite/Pro tier. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('ROI report'), and the context of 'upgrade justification' distinguishes it from sibling tools like metrx_generate_roi_audit.

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 'Do NOT use if already on Lite or Pro tier — not relevant for paid-tier users.' This provides clear exclusion criteria. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for paid-tier users, which would elevate it to a 5.

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