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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying that the tool is non-authoritative (scenario, not forecast) and that it does not supply actual fees or market data. It also highlights common pitfalls like double-counting the fee, which is helpful behavioral context not present in the schema or 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?

The description is concise and front-loads the purpose, then provides the formula and critical usage notes. The formula is compact, and the warnings are essential. Slight improvement could be separating the formula for readability, but it's not overlong.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, formula, and key caveats. It doesn't specify the return format, but given the complexity and that it's a calculation tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The warning about double-counting is particularly important.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of all six parameters with descriptive text, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. However, the description adds a formula that clarifies how parameters interact, which is useful, but baseline is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool calculates a hypothetical daily revenue scenario based on user-supplied inputs, specifying the formula and the scope (illustrative, not a forecast). It distinguishes from siblings by being a standalone calculation tool, not a lookup or reference tool.

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 explains when to use the tool (for hypothetical scenario calculations) and provides key guidance: use pre-fee gross hashrate, don't deduct the fee twice. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the context makes it clear it's not for actual profit forecasting.

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