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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mathematical relationship but does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., zero liabilities) or return format. This is sufficient for a simple pure function.

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, compact sentence that states the metric and formula. No wasted words; it is immediately parseable.

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 simple ratio calculator with full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention the use case (liquidity analysis) or distinguish from quick-ratio, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters as numbers with basic descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the key relationship that currentAssets is divided by currentLiabilities, which is crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 current ratio as current assets over current liabilities, making the calculation explicit. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' and does not differentiate from the sibling 'quick-ratio' tool.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like quick-ratio or other liquidity ratios. The description is purely a formula, leaving the agent to infer context.

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