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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the rounding behavior (2 decimals) and the exact formula, which is useful, but says nothing about error handling for invalid/negative inputs or whether missing values are defaulted. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation 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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing '🆓 5 free trial calls per signed wallet' is promotional filler that dilutes signal. Size is otherwise reasonable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented params, the description needs to do more. The formula helps, but the unresolved markup vs markupPercent ambiguity and absence of return-shape details leave the agent guessing on a tool whose whole purpose is a precise numeric result.

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% with three string params, and the description only references two concepts ('cost and a markup percent'). It never distinguishes markup from markupPercent, which are both in the schema, leaving the most important ambiguity unresolved. It also adds no format/units info beyond the raw formula.

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 (computes) and the exact outputs (price, profit, margin percent) from named inputs, and even gives the formula price = cost * (1 + markup/100). It does not name the sibling alternatives (margin-calc, profit-margin, gross-margin), so an agent must infer the distinction itself.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, which matters because many sibling tools (margin-calc, profit-margin, gross-margin, discount-calc) occupy nearby territory. The only contextual note is the free-trial marketing line, which is not usage guidance.

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