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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description has a lower bar. The description adds that the result is a computed revenue lift with a more complete version hosted externally, but says nothing about assumptions, default behavior for expectedLiftPct, or precision/rounding of results. Some value added, but not rich behavioral context.

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 actual capability, and no padding in the core statement. The trailing external URL is marketing rather than agent-relevant information, which is a minor inefficiency but not a structural problem.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (monthly and annual revenue lift), the fully documented schema covers all inputs, and annotations cover the safety profile. The estimator's core inputs and outputs are therefore clear; only modeling assumptions and the expectedLiftPct default behavior are left unstated in prose.

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 each of the four parameters documented in the schema, including the expectedLiftPct default of 8 and the typical 3-15% range. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or units beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and subject: estimate the monthly and annual revenue lift from adding trust/security badges near a conversion point. That is far more informative than the title alone and clearly separates it from adjacent scoring tools like social_proof_strength_auditor. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 alternatives or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'near a conversion point', which implies a scope but does not tell the agent when this estimator is preferable to other calculators in the set. The remainder of the description is a promotional link rather than routing guidance.

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