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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, closed-world read profile, so the burden is lighter. The description adds genuine interpretive behavior beyond annotations by disclosing the close-rate thresholds (80%+ / ~30% / <25%) that drive its judgment.

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?

Front-loaded with the guiding question, then the logic and outputs in one dense sentence with no filler. The parenthetical thresholds lengthen it slightly but each adds decision value.

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 correctly spells out the three returned results, and annotations cover the safety profile while the schema covers all five parameters. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though tie-in to sibling tools is absent.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by giving operational meaning to closeRate via its threshold bands. It still says nothing extra about price, netMargin, customersLost, or newPriceMultiple beyond the schema text.

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 names a concrete analytical job and enumerates its three outputs (suggested price range, profit multiple of a price rise, break-even customer loss), which no sibling calculator does. An agent can tell exactly what this computes without opening the schema.

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 framing 'Is the business underpriced?' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling business calculators. Usage is only inferable.

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