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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with an estimate/calculation tool, and the description reinforces this by framing the output as an estimate rather than a commitment. It adds the useful constraint that all money values are USD per unit, but says nothing about default behavior for the 10 optional inputs, precision, or the response shape.

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 tight sentences with the primary output (landed cost) front-loaded and the currency/unit convention stated immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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?

A 10-parameter, 0%-covered calculator with zero required fields and no output schema leaves the agent unable to know what defaults apply, how labor is derived from assembly_minutes times labor_rate_per_hour, or what the returned estimate contains. The description should do far more given this complexity.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It clarifies that money inputs are USD per unit, but leaves the units of assembly_minutes, the meaning of returns_percent vs payment_fee_percent vs target_margin_percent, and which inputs are optional (0 required) entirely unexplained.

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 ('Estimate') with two concrete outputs: landed cost per unit and the price needed to hit a target margin. The domain (custom product costing) is clearly distinct from the RFQ/quote/supplier siblings, though it never names or contrasts them 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing relative to siblings like submit_quote or get_rfq. The agent must infer that this is a standalone pricing calculator rather than a procurement action.

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