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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the computation model and a return shape, but nothing beyond that (e.g. rounding behavior, errors on zero quantity) — adequate but not rich.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the cross-reference placed after it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the definition does not need to explain return values or side effects. The one remaining gap is that nothing tells the agent when this calculator applies versus its numerous cost/price siblings.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself and the baseline is 3. The description names three of the four inputs, adding no syntax, units, or interpretation beyond what the schema's own descriptions provide.

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 and resource ('Calculate unit cost price') and enumerates the inputs (raw materials, labor, overhead), so the computation is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating from near-neighbors such as calculate_unit_price or calculate_cost_per_use, only pointing at a bundle instead of contrasting siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is 'See list_bundles for related finance-universal calculators,' which points at a discovery tool rather than defining the conditions that select this calculator over the many other cost/price calculators.

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