tam_sam_som_calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the calculation framework (bottom-up) but does not explain what happens to the input data (e.g., calculations performed, output format, whether it stores data), nor does it disclose any limitations or assumptions. This leaves the agent unaware of side effects or output expectations beyond the tool's name.

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 concise, a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose (calculate TAM/SAM/SOM) and adds the key qualifier (bottom-up methodology). It avoids redundancy and is directly to the point. The only slight waste is the parenthetical 'calculation framework, not data source', which is useful but could be integrated more tightly.

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 complexity of a calculation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the calculation formula, expected output format, or key assumptions (e.g., how icp_percentage factors into SAM estimation). An agent would need to infer much of the operational logic, which is risky for a tool that produces critical market sizing numbers.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, each with descriptions. The tool description adds that it uses a bottom-up methodology, which implies certain parameter relationships (e.g., icp_percentage, year1_market_share_target), but does not elaborate on how parameters interact or required units beyond what the schema already provides. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 TAM/SAM/SOM using a bottom-up methodology, specifying the resource (calculator) and action (calculate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on market sizing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative. The clarity is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 implies use when a user needs TAM/SAM/SOM estimation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like icp_deep_dive or account_prioritization. It lacks a when-not-to-use clause. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer appropriate usage contexts.

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