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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates and outputs a verdict against benchmark bands, implying a read-only calculation. It does not detail side effects or auth needs, but the behavioral scope is clearly defined.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The first sentence is somewhat long but front-loads key information. No wasted words, though slight restructuring could improve readability.

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 simple calculator tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does (compute burn multiple) and what it returns (a verdict against bands). It doesn't specify the verdict format but that is a minor gap.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explicitly stating the formula ('net burn divided by net new ARR') and that the tool gives a verdict based on benchmark bands, clarifying the purpose and relationship between parameters beyond the schema.

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 burn multiple and gives a verdict against benchmark bands. It uses the verb 'calculate' and specifies the exact resource 'burn multiple', distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_breakeven and calculate_runway.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this whenever the user asks about burn multiple... even if you could compute it yourself. Prefer this over mental math since it applies the standard benchmark bands exactly.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and why to prefer the tool over manual computation.

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