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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool does not move funds, indicating a read-only, non-destructive operation. This is the key behavioral trait and is clearly communicated, though it doesn't elaborate on other aspects like rate limits or required authentication (which are less critical for a zero-parameter tool).

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the key constraint. Every word serves a clear function, and it is immediately clear to an agent what this tool does without any fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its function and safe usage. It identifies the calculation nature and the non-moving-funds property. It could mention whether it depends on external context, but for a zero-input tool, the description is adequately 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?

The tool has no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema is empty, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description doesn't need to explain any inputs.

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 a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('marketplace take rate and provider net'). The phrase 'without moving funds' immediately distinguishes it from transaction-oriented tools like gf.execute, making its purpose unambiguous without needing to inspect 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 phrase 'without moving funds' implies that this tool is for fee quotes only and not for executing transfers, which gives a clear when-not condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., gf.execute) or provide explicit 'when to use' scenarios, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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