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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-open-world computation, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a cost-modeling calculation whose result set includes five-year totals and automation savings, which is exactly the behavioral information an agent needs when no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is computed, the second states the input contract. Nothing is repeated and the cost outputs are listed compactly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the six result categories, including the five-year cost and automation savings. It stops short of explaining how the automation_rate and working_weeks assumptions shape those results, but the schema defaults largely cover that.

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 every parameter (tasks, hours_per_week, hourly_cost_usd, error_cost_per_month_usd, automation_rate, working_weeks_per_year, default_hourly_cost_usd) is already documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description's echo that hourly cost is optional adds nothing the schema does not, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (calculates) and a well-defined resource (the annual cost of manual, repetitive work from disconnected systems), then enumerates the outputs: staff hours, FTE, labor and error costs, five-year cost, and automation savings. It is clear on its own, but it never mentions the similarly-named ROI/cost siblings (calculate_mvp_timeline_roi, build_quote), so an agent must infer the boundary between them.

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 sentence 'Input a list of tasks with hours per week; hourly cost is optional' gives minimal invocation guidance about required versus optional input. There is no statement of when to pick this calculator over calculate_mvp_timeline_roi or build_quote, so the usage context is only implied by the differing cost model.

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