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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the action as a calculation and notes the return fields (breakevenPrice, totalFees), implying a non-mutating planning operation. It stops short of explicitly stating 'does not execute trades' or 'no side effects', but the wording is sufficiently indicative.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear use-case trigger. No fluff or redundant 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?

The description includes expected return fields (breakevenPrice, totalFees), covers default values in the schema, and clarifies inverse-contract fee currency in the schema description. Without an output schema, the return field names provide sufficient context for the calculation tool.

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 high (83% with 5 of 6 parameters having descriptions, plus enums on two parameters). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline scoring 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 clearly states the tool calculates the break-even exit price covering all trading fees, with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('break-even exit price'). It also includes an explicit user query trigger ('what price do I need to just break even?'), distinguishing it from general pricing tools.

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 gives a clear 'Use when' condition tied to a concrete user query. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like workflow.run_funding_breakeven or workflow.run_exit_target, so guidance on alternatives is implicit rather than explicit.

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