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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the calculation model, conversion timing before a priced round, and key modeling exclusions. It also states that the output is not legal or tax advice, which is meaningful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the use case and formula, and every sentence carries relevant scope or limitation information. The first sentence is long and dense, but there is little wasted wording.

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 detailed schema, output schema, annotations, and single sibling, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, limitations, and model assumptions adequately. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and avoid calculate_cap_table when appropriate.

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 parameter documentation is already strong. The description still adds meaning by giving the core ownership formula linking investment to the valuation cap and by noting that combined SAFE ownership, SAFE price, and share count are produced.

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 the exact operation and subject: calculating SAFE ownership, including the formula, combined SAFE ownership, SAFE price, and share count. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from calculate_cap_table, so an agent can select it 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?

It gives a direct when-to-use trigger: when the user asks a SAFE calculator question such as how much of the company a SAFE buys. It also names exclusions and the alternative tool for priced rounds, notes, and option pool top-ups.

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