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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the projection methodology (baseline hourly rates from existing providers), scenario assumptions (40%/60%/80% utilisation), and a key caveat that results are ranges, not guarantees. This gives an agent a clear picture of what the tool will and will not return.

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?

Two sentences carry the full meaning with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second explains method and output. The critical caveat ('not guarantees') is included without extra prose.

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 read-only estimator, the description covers the estimation basis, scenarios, and output type despite lacking an output schema. It is slightly incomplete on how weekly versus monthly projections are structured and on the role of optional parameters, but annotations plus the scenario list make it close to self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters, but it only mentions category and implicitly refers to hours through 'weekly and monthly' projections. It does not clarify how currency or location are used, nor how hours_per_week is interpreted, leaving most parameter semantics to property names and constraints.

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 ('Estimate') with a concrete resource (weekly and monthly earnings for a Tewdy provider in a category) and a clear output type (ranges, not guarantees). It distinguishes this from the sibling get_category_pricing by framing it as a projection tool built on rate baselines rather than a pricing lookup.

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 purpose strongly implies the tool is for earnings-projection questions, but the description never explicitly states when to use it versus get_category_pricing or when not to apply it. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are named, so usage guidance is only inferred.

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