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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful caveat ('Illustrative model, not legal or tax advice') and notes pool pre/post-money mechanics, but says nothing about the return shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Three compact sentences: the core model first, then the reference link, then the disclaimer. Every sentence carries information and the purpose is front-loaded, though the first sentence is dense.

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 an 8-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description explains what is modeled but never indicates what the tool returns or how results are shaped, leaving a real gap an agent would need to fill to use the output.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema itself, including enums, defaults, and ranges. The description only hints at pool_mode ('pool in the pre-money or post-money') and stacked SAFEs, adding marginal value beyond the schema; 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 and resource: models SAFE conversion at a priced round, founder retention, and option-pool top-up treatment. The scope is narrow enough to separate it from calc_term_sheet_waterfall and calc_cofounder_equity, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when it applies (stacked SAFEs converting at a priced round) and points to the reference web calculator for matching math, but it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance or prerequisites for the sibling calc tools.

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