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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: free, no authentication required, rate limited, and a currency-consistency constraint. That is real behavioral value, though it omits what the rate-limited threshold is.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The currency and auth/rate-limit notes are compact and each carries information. Minor waste in 'matching the website,' which is not actionable for the agent.

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, but for a six-parameter computation with zero schema descriptions the description is far too thin. Units and relationships between billableWeeks, billableHours, and hoursPerDay are never resolved, which is exactly the ambiguity the description should remove.

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 6 required numeric parameters, so the description must carry the full explanatory burden. It only clarifies 'margin' (a percentage buffer over income plus overhead) and leaves annualIncome, overhead, billableWeeks, billableHours, and hoursPerDay completely undefined. An agent cannot tell, for example, whether billableHours is per week or per year.

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 verb and resource ('Calculate sustainable rates'), but 'sustainable rates' is vague about what is actually being computed and what domain it applies to. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like agency_pricing or photography_pricing, which likely compute similar rate outputs. An agent must infer the scope from the parameter names.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over agency_pricing or photography_pricing. It states 'matching the website' and a currency rule, but never explains the scenario this tool fits. Usage must be inferred entirely from the schema.

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