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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it is x402-paid at $0.30 and deterministic. This is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or whether the tool requires specific inputs beyond the required ones. Given annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the added behavioral context is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the tool's name and cost, then states the purpose and outputs. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it lacks usage context—when to apply it, what scenarios it is designed for, or how it relates to sibling tools. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable. However, with 17 parameters and a niche financial function, more contextual guidance would be helpful for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 baseline is 3. The description names key waterfall concepts (return of capital, preferred, catch-up, carry) which map to parameters like contributedCapital, preferredRate, catchUpPercentage, and carryPercentage, but it doesn't explain any parameter beyond what the schema already states. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'deterministic LP/GP distribution waterfall' — and enumerates the stages (return of capital, preferred, GP catch-up, carried-interest split) plus the outputs (exact split, per-tier breakdown, LP MOIC, effective carry %). This distinguishes it from generic financial tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool computes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like cashflowlens_analyze or dealanalyzer_analyze might overlap, but the description makes no attempt to differentiate or direct the agent to the appropriate tool.

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