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

Annotations already signal readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description adds context by listing what the calculation covers (capital gains, depreciation recapture, taxes deferred, deadlines). It also mentions financing structuring, though it doesn't disclose assumptions or limitations.

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 first sentence is concise and informative, but the second sentence includes a promotional pitch with an ambiguous phrase ('28 days or $1,000 close') that doesn't help an agent select or invoke the tool. This unnecessary content prevents a higher score.

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?

For a 7-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description provides enough context about expected results (capital gains, recapture, deferred taxes, deadlines). It lacks return format details and caveats, and the financing text adds noise, so it is not fully complete.

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% and all parameter descriptions are self-explanatory. The tool description does not add parameter-level syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 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's verb ('Analyze', 'Calculates') and specific resource ('1031 exchange scenario for tax deferral'). It lists concrete outputs (capital gains, depreciation recapture, estimated taxes deferred, key deadlines), which distinguishes it from other real estate calc siblings.

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 clearly implies use for 1031 exchange scenarios and tax deferral analysis, which differentiates it from sibling calculators like calc-flip_roi or calc-rental_cashflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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