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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious traits on top: no authentication required, rate limiting, a currency-consistency constraint across all money inputs, and how margin is applied. It stops short of describing the returned rate structure, but the output schema covers that.

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 and immediately followed by the margin definition, which is the least obvious input. 'Matching the website' is filler that does not help an agent, but overall there is very little waste.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is carried by annotations. However, for a tool requiring six bare numeric parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most inputs semantically undefined, which is the main completeness gap.

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% across six required parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden and only discharges part of it. It explains margin's meaning and the shared-currency requirement for money fields, but annualIncome, overhead, billableWeeks, billableHours, and hoursPerDay are left without units or meaning, and the agent must infer that billableHours is per-week from the max of 168.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Calculate sustainable rates') and the margin semantics tie it to a pricing calculation, matching the title's 'Freelance hourly and day rates'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling pricing tools like agency_pricing or photography_pricing, so the agent must infer the freelance context from the name/title alone.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over agency_pricing, photography_pricing, or the other pricing siblings, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The 'Free, no authentication required' line is an access note, not usage guidance.

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