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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'evidence-bounded' and includes a canonical web tool URL, which is useful extra context beyond annotations, but it doesn't discuss precision, assumptions, or error conditions.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and kept short. Slightly telegraphic but no wasted words.

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. The description notes that the result is 'evidence-bounded' and includes a URL, which is helpful, but for an 11-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse regarding input semantics and usage context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does mention the key concepts—seats, billing periods, setup fees, and usage charges—which map to several parameters (seats, aBilling/bBilling, aSetup/bSetup, aUsage/bUsage). However, it doesn't clarify string formats, requiredness, or the meaning of parameters like aName/bName beyond being names. With 11 parameters and no schema documentation, the description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Normalize two software prices to a first-year cost', which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools like sponsorship_break_even. It does not explicitly name or compare against siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. The agent has to infer usage context purely from the operation described.

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