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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results come in low/mid/high scenarios and that a partner share can be applied, but it does not explain what the returned figures represent or how the scenarios are derived.

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 dense sentence with the estimation target front-loaded and the optional partner-share modifier at the end. Nothing is wasted, though the phrase 'in low / mid / high scenarios' is slightly ambiguous about whether scenarios are inputs or outputs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries more of the burden for explaining results, and it only gestures at the return (buyers, revenue, three scenarios) without saying what each scenario contains or how partnerShare affects the numbers. Adequate for a read-only calculator but leaves the output shape underspecified.

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 100%, so every parameter (buyRate, contacts, reachable, orderValue, partnerShare) is already documented with defaults and ranges. The description only echoes partnerShare and orderValue at a high level, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Estimates') plus a concrete resource (buyers and revenue from one offer to past customers), with scenario framing that clearly marks it as a calculator. It is easily separable from sibling calculators like price_headroom_check or thirty_day_cash_check, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 says what is computed but gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no indication of when this model is or is not appropriate versus the other estimate/calculator siblings. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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