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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by exposing the exact pricing formula (price = break-even / (1 − margin)), which tells the agent this is a deterministic pure calculation and how margin differs from markup. It omits edge-case behavior such as a margin of 100 causing division by zero.

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 that states the output, lists the inputs in logical order, and closes with the formula. No filler, nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and all seven parameters are documented at 100% coverage. The only gap is unstated error behavior for degenerate margins (e.g., margin ≥ 100), which matters for a division-based calculation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by naming each input's role and clarifying that margin is a target net margin applied as a divisor rather than a markup multiplier — a distinction the schema alone does not make.

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 precise computation (electrical bid price) and enumerates every input dimension — materials, markup, labor hours and rate, job costs, overhead, target net margin — and even supplies the governing formula. This is unmistakably distinct from the numeric siblings such as ohms_law, load_calculator, and voltage_drop.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With siblings like load_calculator and panel_schedule in the same electrical domain, an agent gets no help deciding which calculator applies to a pricing question versus a load question.

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