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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it discloses that results are arithmetic on the given figures rather than advice, that every allocation is returned with source, blockers, and stated assumptions, and that unreachable structures are surfaced with the reason. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free/read-only behavior or how missing or nonsensical inputs are handled, which is the remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: purpose and optimization target first, then return contents, then the non-advice disclaimer, then the sibling relationship. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: allocations with source, blockers, assumptions, and out-of-reach structures with reasons. Combined with the non-advice framing and the sibling routing note, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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% across 8 parameters, so the schema already defines each field, including defaults and the 'unpriced owner' and 'growth never priced in' behaviors. The description only ties loosely to semantics via 'least of the buyer's own cash' and 'seller-financed and contingent structures'; it adds no field-level meaning 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 ('Price') and resource ('the capital stack that buys a business') plus the optimization target ('least of the buyer's own cash') and the structural source ('seller-financed and contingent structures'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling build_sba_stack, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (build_sba_stack), describes what that alternative does ('prices the bank-loan route on the same figures'), and states the ranking policy ('neither is ranked above the other'), removing any ambiguity about which to call for a bank-loan scenario. The scope of when this tool applies (buying a business with minimum buyer cash) is stated up front.

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