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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It discloses the core calculation logic but does not describe the return format, whether at least one target is required, or any side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks specification of the return value and default behavior when no targets are provided. While the core concept is clear, these gaps prevent a higher score.

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 descriptions already document each parameter as a target price per unit (100% coverage). The tool description adds context that these targets are used in multiplier calculations, but this is marginal added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates price multipliers based on hypothetical target prices versus current spot, which is a specific and distinct function. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the 'hypothetical target prices' distinction sets it apart from spot/history tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_spot_prices or get_price_history. The description implies the use case (what-if scenarios) but gives no exclusions or alternative references.

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