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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds valuable calculation boundaries by disclosing the absence of tax/wage deductions and sales prediction. It still does not describe result format or edge-case handling, but it adds real context beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by key exclusions; no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a calculation tool.

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 13-parameter calculation tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description names the computed outputs and the major assumptions/exclusions. It could be richer about the returned result shape, but it is broadly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, including currency and zero-value semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond 'explicit user inputs', leaving this at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and enumerates the computed quantities (profit, break-even sales/months, capacity), and the tool name adds Etsy payback context. It does not explicitly differentiate from calculate_maker_price or calculate_laser_setup, so it stops short of 5.

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 signals that inputs must be explicit user-provided figures and rules out tax/wage deductions, predicted sales, and prefilled Etsy fees. However, it never names a sibling alternative or gives an explicit when-to-use trigger, so usage is only implied.

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