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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Does not move money,' disclosing a key behavioral trait (no financial side effects). However, it omits other potential details like authentication or rate limits, though these are less critical for a calculation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains zero filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple calculator with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and side-effects. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the tool description does not elaborate on the 'transaction_value_usd' parameter beyond its name. It implies the fee depends on the value but offers no additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 the exact launch fee for a transaction before payment, using a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('MUJ428 Transaction Assurance launch fee'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_trust_layer_pricing by emphasizing 'exact' and 'before payment', and adds a clarifying side-effect note.

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 provides a clear usage context ('before payment') and implies a timing constraint, but does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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