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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool is a pure calculator returning three derived metrics and points to an interactive reference implementation, but says nothing about units, rounding, or edge-case behavior (e.g. when target_pool_pct is below existing_pool_pct).

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and then lists outputs, followed by a reference URL. No filler, though the sentence is long and the three output clauses are packed rather than bulleted.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does name all three computed results. What is missing is output units/format and how the 'founder ownership cost' comparison is expressed (percentage points vs dollars), which would fully close the gap for a six-parameter 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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does hint at the conceptual distinction between pre-money and post-money pool percentages, which reinforces the schema's target_pool_pct wording, but adds no syntax, units, or interaction details beyond it. 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?

States a specific named computation (the 'option pool shuffle' for one round) and enumerates the three results it produces: required pool growth, effective pre-money, and founder cost of a pre- vs post-money pool. This is far more specific than a name restatement, though it never names the sibling tools (dilution, pro_rata, safe_conversion) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for one round' — an agent can infer this is for modeling a single priced round's option pool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as dilution or startup_valuation.

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