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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, though the non-read-only flag is unexplained for something that reads as a pure computation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the response shape (month-by-month revenue, cost, break-even), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states purpose, the second states output. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 description compensates for the missing output schema by summarizing returns, and all params are documented in the schema. However, it omits what happens when the optional parameters are omitted (defaults), and gives no usage context, leaving a gap for a projection tool with zero required inputs.

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%, so all three parameters (avgJobValue, monthlyCost, utilization) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate ROI projection') plus the domain ('for onboarding equipment'), so the agent knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling calculate_price, so it falls just 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?

The phrase 'for onboarding equipment' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g. calculate_price). Usage is only inferable from the domain wording.

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