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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the structured fields — 'no signup' implies no auth is required and 'deterministic' implies stable repeatable output for identical inputs. It does not explain units, defaults, or what the returned quote contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with no filler. It is slightly cryptic ('by labor and target margin') where a few more words would have removed ambiguity without bloat.

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 6-parameter calculator with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too thin: no units, no defaults for the four optional params, and no indication of what the quote result looks like. An agent can guess the domain but not how to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It alludes conceptually to 'labor' and 'target margin,' loosely hinting at hours/hourlyWage/laborBurdenPct/targetMarginPct, but gives no meaning or format for overheadUsd, suppliesUsd, or how percentage parameters are expressed (0-100 vs 0-1).

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 a specific verb+resource: it produces a commercial cleaning quote derived from labor inputs and a target margin. That distinguishes it reasonably well from generic siblings like penny_margin and penny_target_price. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating at the top level.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it point at an alternative tool. 'Free, no signup, deterministic' is a trust/access statement rather than usage direction, leaving selection to inference from the name.

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