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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses statelessness, pricing, data retention ('raw events are not retained'), no LLM usage, and disclaimers (not financial advice). However, it omits details about error behavior or what happens upon invalid input, preventing a 5.

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 five sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, stateless/pricing, data handling, disclaimer, sibling guidance. No redundant or filler content; front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description adequately covers output findings and key behaviors. However, it lacks details on input constraints (e.g., max events, required event fields) and error handling. The output schema partially compensates, but gaps remain.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters (events, baseCurrency, exchangeRates, currentCashBalance, currentCashBalances). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a tool with nested structures and complex inputs.

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 clearly states that profit_analyze provides deterministic findings about specific financial metrics like cost concentration and revenue concentration, distinguishing it from sibling profit_calculate for totals. It explicitly names the resource categories it analyzes.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when an agent needs deterministic findings about...') and when not to, by directing to profit_calculate for totals without findings. It also mentions statelessness and pricing as practical guidance.

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