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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by outlining the modeled phases (buy, rehab, rent, refinance, repeat) and key outputs (cash invested, cash recovered, infinite return). It also indicates that both acquisition financing and DSCR refinance are considered, which goes beyond the annotation information.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in a concise first sentence. The second sentence adds a marketing tagline ('USDV Capital — Your Real Estate CFO') but also mentions significant behavior (structuring both acquisition and DSCR refinance). It is not purely wasted, though it could be tighter. Overall, appropriately sized for the 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 the high-level analysis but omits important behavior: the sendReportTo parameter can email a Capital Advisory Report, and there are detailed instructions about only using real emails. This is not mentioned in the description. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it only hints at outputs (infinite return). The tool has 13 parameters and the description gives a good overview but not full coverage of its behavior.

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 all 13 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is sufficient. It mentions 'cash invested, cash recovered' but these are outputs, not parameters, so no additional semantic value is provided.

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's purpose: 'Analyze a BRRRR (Buy, Rehab, Rent, Refinance, Repeat) strategy' and details what the analysis covers ('all 5 phases including cash invested, cash recovered, and whether infinite return is achieved'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling calculators like calc-flip_roi, calc-rental_cashflow, and calc-dscr.

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 provides clear context: it is for BRRRR strategy analysis specifically. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention sibling alternatives. The context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for BRRRR-related queries, though exclusions are not spelled out.

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