Payout after fees

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output shape ('per sale and in total'), but omits that the tool is a pure calculation with no side effects, that platform-specific params are optional and conditional, and any defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the computation and its unit basis, with no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a calculator-style tool.

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 14-param, four-platform tool with conditional fields, the description covers the outcome but says nothing about the branching by platform or the absence of an output schema return structure beyond 'per sale and in total'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 93%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including platform-conditional fields. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or examples beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear specific outcome: net amount kept per sale and in total after platform and processing fees, over a number of units. Distinguishes itself from the 'fee' sibling by framing itself as the net result, but never names the alternatives explicitly.

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 mention of the sibling tools (fee, compare, price_for_target) that an agent could pick instead. The multi-platform, conditionally-parameterized nature (Etsy/Gumroad/PayPal/Stripe) is left entirely to inference.

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