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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the output includes a margin of error at 95% confidence, telling the agent what statistical result to expect beyond the score itself.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the metric, the inputs, and the 95% confidence detail; the second fragment is just a link. Nothing is padded, though the promotional URL is marginal value for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple: three required numeric parameters, full schema documentation, annotations covering side-effect profile, and an output schema that presumably explains the returned score and error. The description supplies the calculation basis and output characteristic, so an agent can call it confidently with only the underlying NPS formula left implicit.

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 each of the three parameters already documents its score range (9-10, 7-8, 0-6). The description repeats those same buckets without adding format, validation, or edge-case guidance, so it adds little over the schema — the baseline 3.

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 (calculate) and resource (Net Promoter Score) plus the exact input buckets, so the agent knows precisely what is computed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many sibling calculators (calculate_arr, calculate_nrr, rule_of_40), though the NPS label makes the distinction self-evident.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The trailing URL to a web calculator is a reference link, not invocation guidance, leaving usage entirely inferred from the tool name.

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