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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it uses US and UK fee tables and offers print-on-demand options for prints, plus a sort order (by money kept). It omits caveats such as fee-table freshness or accuracy limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and then packed with platform names and output ordering. It is dense but every clause carries information; the platform enumeration is a bit list-heavy but justifies the sort-by-proceeds promise.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the result and does so: per-platform kept amounts, sorted by money kept, with print-on-demand variants. Fee-table geography is noted. It stops short of clarifying output shape or currency handling in results, but is otherwise sufficient.

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 four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the price input and the print option (kind), but adds no format, range, or default detail beyond what the schema states.

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 — what the artist keeps after fees on a named list of platforms — which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_fair_art_price (buyer-facing price) and calculate_resale_royalty (royalty math). The agent knows immediately this is a net-proceeds comparison.

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?

Provides clear context: it takes a sale price and returns per-platform net proceeds, which tells the agent when to reach for it. It does not name an alternative or state exclusions versus the pricing/royalty siblings, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not routing.

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