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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that electricity costs are deducted and that daily/monthly net profit is the output, which is useful context, but it omits caveats like difficulty volatility or input assumptions.

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?

Three short sentences with purpose front-loaded, use case second, output and pointer last. It is tight and well ordered, though the input enumeration partially duplicates the fully documented schema.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description is adequately complete: it conveys purpose, audience, key inputs and the output granularity (daily/monthly net profit). Only edge-case assumptions remain unstated.

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% and an output schema exists, so the schema carries parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description's input list (hashrate, power W, kWh price, difficulty, coin price) merely restates schema fields without adding format, units or default semantics (e.g., the block_reward default).

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 (Compute) and resource (crypto mining profitability after electricity costs), and names the distinguishing feature (net of electricity costs). It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like calculate_crypto_profit_loss or calculate_staking_rewards, so it stops short of a 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?

'Use for miners evaluating ROI' gives an implied audience/context but no when-not guidance or named alternative. The pointer to list_bundles is a discovery hint rather than routing between comparable calculators, so usage is only lightly implied.

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