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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the output includes derived metrics (net advocacy, referral pipeline), which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about determinism or input constraints beyond that.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The second sentence is a website plug that adds no invocation value, slightly diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does name the three outputs. It omits any note on how passives are derived or whether percentages must sum within 100, but that gap is minor for a simple four-input calculator.

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 all four parameters (customerBase, promoterPct, detractorPct, referralRatePct) are already documented in the schema, including the 9-10 / 0-6 score bands. The description only references promoter and detractor percentages and adds no syntax or range information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 transformation (promoter and detractor percentages) into three named outputs (NPS, net advocacy, organic referral pipeline). This distinguishes it from the many other marketing calculators in the sibling list (e.g., ltv_cac_calculator, mql_calculator) that consume different inputs.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for related survey/advocacy modeling. The only extra sentence is a promotional link, which does not help an agent decide whether to invoke this tool.

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