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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the three outputs (dollar budget, contract count, share of equity at risk), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about rounding of contract counts or handling of zero/negative inputs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leading with the question it answers ('How many contracts fit a risk budget') and then enumerating inputs and outputs. Dense but every clause carries information; the mapping of inputs to outputs is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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 three-parameter, fully documented, pure-computation tool the definition is nearly sufficient, and it compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned values. It stops short of complete because computational conventions (rounding contract count down, unit assumptions) are left unspecified.

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% with units already documented for all three required properties, so the schema carries the load. The prose restates the same three inputs without adding format, range, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 computation (contract count from a risk budget) and enumerates the outputs it returns, so an agent can tell what it produces without opening anything. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbours like profit_calculator or what_if, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other calculator siblings (profit_calculator, probability_of_profit, what_if). Usage is only implied by the inputs listed, with no prerequisites or exclusions.

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