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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Read-only: it never calls an extraction provider.' This adds valuable assurance about external side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the decision purpose comes first, followed by usage context and then a safety-relevant read-only note. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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?

The description conveys the core decision among stay, overflow, or upgrade, and the read-only behavior is clear. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain how parameters like minQuality, minCompletion, or maxRemainingExtractions influence the recommendation, nor does it distinguish this tool from close siblings. This leaves moderate gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'remaining URL extractions,' matching the required remainingExtractions field, while minQuality, minCompletion, and maxRemainingExtractions are left unexplained. The description fails to clarify what these thresholds and capacity values mean for the recommendation.

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 names a specific decision task — whether to stay on current plans, overflow to another vendor, or upgrade subscriptions — which clearly explains what the tool does. It also anchors the tool in procurement, vendor, capacity, and cost decisions, helping an agent separate it from siblings like usage or quote, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives clear context: use it for procurement, vendor, capacity, and cost decisions based on current usage and projected remaining URL extractions. It does not, however, state when not to use it or explicitly point to sibling tools such as usage or quote as alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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