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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure fully. It states the tool returns daily/monthly net profit, but does not mention side effects, error handling, or prerequisites beyond inputs. It is sufficient for a read-only calculation but lacks depth.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence adds 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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions daily/monthly net profit, which is adequate. However, it does not cover error conditions or prerequisites beyond inputs, which would be beneficial for a tool with multiple required parameters.

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%, with all parameters described. The tool description lists inputs but only by name (hashrate, power W, etc.), adding little beyond the schema. It repeats what is already in the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the purpose: compute crypto mining profitability after electricity costs. It identifies the target users (miners) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'crypto calculators' and pointing to list_bundles for related tools.

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 description says 'Use for miners evaluating ROI', providing clear context. It also references list_bundles for related calculators, implying alternative tools exist, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with specific siblings.

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