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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is free, requires no authentication, and is rate limited. The formula semantics (margin as a percentage of selling price versus overhead/riskBuffer as additive percentages) also clarify behavior beyond the numeric bounds in schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the semantic clarifications and then the operational facts. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 an output schema present there is no need to describe return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers formula basis, auth requirements and rate limiting, which is nearly everything an agent needs before calling; only the sibling routing question remains open.

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 compensate, and it does for the ambiguous parameters: it clarifies that margin is a percentage of selling price while overhead and riskBuffer are percentage additions, which the schema's bare min/max bounds cannot express. hours and hourlyCost are left unstated, but their meaning is self-evident from the names and the pricing formula.

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 and resource ('Calculate project price from labor, overhead and risk buffer') with the formula inputs named, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the pricing-like siblings (freelance_rate, photography_pricing, quotation_generate), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming guidance. The description never says whether this supersedes freelance_rate or how it relates to quotation_generate; an agent must guess based on the name alone.

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