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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add model context. It discloses the calculation logic (lost revenue plus 5/10-point improvement scenario) but omits assumptions such as how held-demo close rate is applied and whether results are monthly only.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core computation before the promotional URL. The 'See the full version at ...' clause is marketing filler that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately characterizes the return values (monthly lost revenue and recovery amounts at two improvement levels). For a four-param stateless calculator with full annotation coverage, it covers what an agent needs, minus stated modeling assumptions.

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% with all four required params documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal interpretation - that no-show rate is the lever being shocked by 5/10 points - without clarifying units or edge cases beyond the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb (calculate) plus the resource and the exact output quantity: revenue lost monthly to demo no-shows and recovery from a 5- or 10-point rate cut. It is clear, but it never names or contrasts itself with the many adjacent calculator siblings (e.g. lead_routing_delay_cost_calculator), so differentiation is left to the reader.

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 implies its own scenario (monthly demo no-show economics) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether this or a neighboring funnel/leak calculator is the right pick.

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