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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closedWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real context by disclosing that unset costs fall back to typical small-business numbers, which tells the agent results are estimates rather than blanks or errors.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by framing and a defaults caveat; nothing is wasted. Slight redundancy between the description and the schema defaults keeps it from a 5.

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 correctly names the return metrics and the default behavior, so an agent can call it and interpret results. It could say more about output shape or the break-even interpretation, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already documents ranges and defaults, so the description only restates the high-level inputs (clients, visit frequency, average price). It adds no interpretation beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.

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 the exact resource and outputs (monthly revenue, costs, profit, margin, break-even) and scopes it to a residential cleaning business, which separates it from the commercial bid and house-pricing siblings. An agent can tell what it computes without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete trigger questions ('how much does a cleaning business make', 'is my cleaning business profitable'), which is strong positive guidance. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as minimum_cleaning_price_by_state or price_house_cleaning for per-job pricing.

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