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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds a genuine limitation disclosure beyond them: 'It counts time only, so it understates the value of faster turnaround and fewer errors.' It also states the output basis (payback period, three-year net) and parity with the public calculator, though it does not mention currency or rounding of results.

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?

Outputs are front-loaded in the first sentence, inputs in the second, and the caveat in the third – no padding. The calculator-at-shurco.ai sentence is promotional but arguably useful for trust; four short sentences is appropriate for this scope.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must name the returns, and it does ('payback period and three year net'), plus it discloses the tool's blind spot. Inputs are fully covered by the schema. Only the currency/unit of the monetary outputs is left implicit.

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%, so every parameter (including the optional working_weeks default of 46) is already explained in the schema. The description restates the required inputs in prose but adds no format, unit, or default detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 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 opening sentence names the exact outputs ('payback period and three year net') and the resource ('automating a repetitive task'), which separates it from siblings like llm_cost_estimate and score_automation_candidate. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb ('calculate'), and it never names the closest sibling, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: the description sketches the scenario ('a repetitive task', with hours, cost, share, build cost) so an agent can infer the fit, and it points to the equivalent free calculator at shurco.ai. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no routing against score_automation_candidate, which also deals with automation decisions.

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