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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it's x402-paid ($2.00), deterministic (reinforcing idempotency), and cross-checks results by combining two lenses. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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-loading the tool's identity and payment status, then listing concrete capabilities. No fluff or redundancy; it is compact yet information-dense, a model of concise documentation.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters and nested objects, the description provides a solid overview of what it computes and highlights cross-checking as a value-add. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. Minor gap: 'sensitivity' is mentioned without explanation, but the schema likely covers it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meanings beyond what the schema already provides, though it does tie the main input objects (dcf, returns, waterfall) to their output categories. The schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 tool performs a full deal underwrite in a single call, listing specific outputs: DCF valuation, fund returns, and LP/GP distribution waterfall. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it combines CashflowLens + WaterfallLens, making its purpose and differentiation unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this is the flagship, one-call tool for complete underwriting, and implies alternatives (CashflowLens, WaterfallLens) by saying it combines them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly recommend alternatives for narrower needs.

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