Side-Hustle / Income-Stream Ranker

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists key factors accounted for (startup cost, ramp time, etc.), which sets expectations. However, it omits output details (e.g., whether it returns a ranked list or scores) and does not mention any limitations or safety considerations, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. The structure clearly states what the tool does and the value it provides.

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 explains input factors well but lacks information about the output format (ranked list vs. scores) and any constraints (e.g., maximum number of hustles). Given no output schema, this omission reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little new per-parameter information beyond what is already in the schema. It provides context on how parameters are combined into the risk-adjusted value, but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it ranks side-hustle ideas by risk-adjusted effective hourly value, considering specific factors like startup cost, ramp time, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling financial tools by focusing on side-hustle comparison, using a concrete verb and resource.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a numbers-driven decision maker for 'which side hustle should I start?', clearly indicating its use case. However, it does not provide exclusions or mention when to use alternatives like budget_analyzer or freelance_rate, leaving some ambiguity.

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