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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context: returns INVALID_PARAMS for unknown type and refreshes monthly. This discloses error behavior and data staleness, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the main return values, then the optional parameter, then usage guidelines, then error and refresh behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 read-only lookup tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the return structure, parameter semantics, error behavior, refresh frequency, and alternative tools. No output schema exists, but the return values are described adequately, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has no description for the `type` parameter, so the description compensates by explaining it as an optional filter narrowing the packaging array to one technology. It also lists example technologies elsewhere in the description, giving the agent a good sense of valid values, though not an exhaustive list.

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 returns two sub-arrays (`packaging` and `hbmSpecs`) with specific content, using a specific verb and listing technology types. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives in the DO NOT USE section.

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 includes explicit 'USE THIS for' and 'DO NOT USE for' sections, naming get_hbm_market_data and get_accelerator_costs as alternatives. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, making the choice straightforward.

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