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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-derivable context about cost/auth ('Free, no authentication required') and throttling ('Rate limited'). It stops short of quantifying the rate limit or describing the calculation order for overhead and riskBuffer.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. 'Rate limited' is terse to the point of being uninformative, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a pure read-only calculation with no side effects. What remains missing is the mechanics an agent would need for correct invocation: how the percentage additions compose and what units hourlyCost and hours are in.

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%, so the description must carry the burden and it partially does: it clarifies that 'margin is percentage of selling price' while 'overhead and riskBuffer are percentage additions', which are genuinely non-obvious and mathematically distinct. However, hourlyCost and hours receive no explanation, and the units/order of application of the percentage additions remain ambiguous.

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') and resource ('project price') plus the input basis (labor, overhead, risk buffer), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from pricing siblings like freelance_rate or photography_pricing, which compute prices from different inputs.

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?

Contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references the competing pricing siblings in the toolset (freelance_rate, photography_pricing, quotation_generate). 'Free, no authentication required' is an operational fact, not selection guidance.

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