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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a notable behavior: passing certify=true returns a DSSE/Ed25519 signed receipt, and it promises 'exact per-tier math.' It does not discuss side effects, but as a calculator, this is adequate.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the certificate feature. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core calculation and the optional certificate feature, but it does not detail the return value structure or the exact behavior of the adjustment parameter. Since there is no output schema, it leaves some uncertainty, but the core purpose and scope are well covered.

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 0%, but the description explains the tiered logic (tier1, tier2, threshold, adjustment) which maps directly to the parameters. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly list each parameter; the parameter names themselves are self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Calculate tiered sales commission in USD' and specifies the exact structure (base rate up to threshold, higher rate above, adjustment). This distinguishes it from the many sibling calculators by detailing the tiering concept.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: for tiered commission calculations with a base rate, threshold, and adjustment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other calculators.

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