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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation flow: fee before minimum, completion fee after minimum, retainers paid over the mandate, and balance at completion, which is meaningful behavioral detail. It does not mention side effects, but as a calculator this is reasonable, and the default-fallback note adds transparency.

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 compact and scannable with a colon-separated list, but it contains a redundant typo ('calculator calculator') that undermines polish. Each clause carries information, but the structure is slightly cluttered.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and seven optional parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the fee components and defaults, but it does not describe the return value shape or how to handle the output, and it omits guidance on sibling-tool selection. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond pointing to documented defaults and clarifying the retainer/minimum context, which does not surpass the baseline expectation.

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 operation ('Run') and the resource ('M&A advisory fee calculator'), and it enumerates the fee components it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is 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 implies usage context by listing what the calculator computes and notes that missing inputs fall back to defaults. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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