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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them either.

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 followed by a URL. It is efficient and free of filler, though the external link is not directly useful for tool invocation.

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?

Given the simple calculator nature, fully documented parameters, and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not explain the return format, but without an output schema this is a minor gap for a calculation tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the schema supplies full semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline of 3 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 states a specific action ('weigh') and resources ('CRM subscription and implementation cost against the win-rate lift it buys'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like crm_cleanup_roi_calculator, but the name and description are specific enough.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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