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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only names the inputs and output without explaining how overhead/profit margin are applied, what 'milestone splits' means, or what the response looks like. The unbacked mention of milestone splits is vague.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the core conversion and key components with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning, though milestone splits could use elaboration.

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 four-parameter calculator with a fully documented schema, the description conveys the purpose, but without an output schema it leaves 'milestone splits' undefined and does not clarify the expected result format. The calculation defaults are only discoverable in the schema, not the description.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, and the mention of milestone splits does not correspond to any input parameter.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Turn hourly rate into project quote') and names the calculation components (overhead, profit margin, milestone splits). This clearly separates it from sibling calculators like calculate_freelancer_tax and calculate_break_even.

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 clear context: use it when converting an hourly rate and estimated hours into a project quote. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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