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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds meaningful behavior: it computes strictly from supplied figures, applies a documented $47 default with its source and date, and returns break-even horizons of both 12 and 6 months. It does not mention rounding or currency assumptions, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the four outputs, then the input constraint, then the default cost with attribution. Dense but every clause carries information; the BLS attribution is slightly verbose but justified for a cost model.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics, and it does: hours/month, cost/year, automatable share, and break-even budget at two horizons. Combined with the rich nested input schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 coverage is 50%, and the description's handling of parameters largely restates schema content (hourly_cost default 47, copying_share as copying-not-judgment). It adds the rationale behind the default but no new syntax or constraints for the nested task fields, so 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?

States specific computed outputs: monthly hours on repetitive tasks, annual cost, automatable share, and break-even budget at 12 and 6 months. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces, and it is clearly distinct from the field-kit/guide/speed-test 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?

Usage is implied by the description ('uses only the figures provided'), which signals it is a pure computation over caller-supplied data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, and nothing about what to do if the user lacks task estimates.

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