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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly states no page or account state changes, no access to BetterOff customer data, no personalized financial advice, and public-input-only execution. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies side effects, privacy, and scope.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the read-only educational nature, then states exactly what the tool computes and what it does not do. Every sentence earns its place and the length is proportionate to the tool's simplicity.

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 a simple educational calculator with rich annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, its side-effect guarantees, its data-access boundaries, and its advisory limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 three parameters with defaults, ranges, and examples. The description mentions 'initial investment and token price multipliers', which conceptually maps to the parameters, but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimates') with a clear resource ('impermanent loss') and the exact calculation context ('initial investment and token price multipliers in a 50/50 constant-product AMM'). This uniquely distinguishes it from the many sibling calculator tools without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when the user wants an educational impermanent loss estimate from price multipliers and initial capital, using public inputs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'Read-only educational calculator' and 'caller-supplied public inputs' provides enough context to select it appropriately.

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