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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior — which payment channels are modeled (Gumroad direct/Discover, Stripe, PayPal checkout/card/goods, Etsy) and that output is sorted best net first — but says nothing about assumptions (currency, fixed vs percentage fees) or whether this is a pure read-only computation.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the outputs and then the platform scope, with the ordering rule ('best net first') placed at the end where it belongs. Every clause carries information; only the platform enumeration is bulky.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of stating what comes back (fee and net per platform) and how it is ordered. It stops short of describing the response shape or units in detail, but for a one-parameter calculator it is largely sufficient.

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% and the single `amount` parameter is fully documented as 'Sale price in USD'. The description only gestures at it via 'for one price' and adds no format or currency nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact outputs (fee and net), the single input (one price), and enumerates the platforms covered, so an agent knows this is a multi-platform fee/net comparison rather than a single-platform calculation. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling `fee` and `platforms`, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied by the framing: use it when you want fees and net across all supported platforms, with results ordered by best net. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to siblings like `fee` (single platform) or `price_for_target` for reverse calculation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one real behavioral default (Gumroad direct sales include 2.9% + $0.30 card processing unless overridden via the processing param) plus the US-seller/USD scope. It does not say whether this is a pure, side-effect-free calculation, what happens on invalid platform/param combinations, or whether any auth is needed.

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 the purpose and platform scope, then the one non-obvious default. No padding or repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the two return values ('fee and net amount'), which is the key thing a caller needs. For a computation tool with 2 required params and near-full schema coverage this is largely complete; the remaining gaps (error behavior, multi-currency beyond USD) are minor.

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 92% and four params are enums, so the schema already explains nearly everything (platform gating, defaults, per-platform semantics). The description only adds currency/region context and restates the Gumroad processing default, which is the correct baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific computation (fee and net amount) for a specific resource (one sale) and enumerates the four supported platforms, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like compare or price_for_target, so the agent must infer that 'one sale' means a single-calculation rather than a multi-scenario tool.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the platform list, the '(US sellers, USD)' qualifier, and the Gumroad default give context for when the tool applies. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to compare, payout, or price_for_target, and no statement of what happens for unsupported regions/currencies.

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

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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a static reference read but never states that it is read-only, whether it is cached or live, whether auth is required, or how frequently the 'default rates' change — all of which matter for a pricing-adjacent lookup.

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 compact fragment that front-loads the payload contents with zero filler. It is efficient, though as a bare noun phrase it lacks a framing clause that would make the intent immediately actionable.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only source of information, and it never defines what a 'platform' is, what 'options' contains, or the shape of the returned records. It covers the broad content categories, which is the minimum viable level, but leaves the agent guessing about the return format.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description cannot add parameter meaning that does not exist.

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 names the resource and its payload (default rates, options, official source pages) but supplies no verb, so it reads as a data dump rather than an action an agent can request. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like fee, payout, and price_for_target, which plausibly cover overlapping rate/price territory.

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 statement of when to call this versus fee, price_for_target, or compare, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must guess from the name alone whether this is a reference lookup or a computation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavior: rounding up to the cent and guaranteeing 'at least' the target (a conservative, never-short result). It does not state that the operation is side-effect free, nor what the output form is, so the disclosure is partial.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core computation and immediately qualified with the rounding/guarantee caveat. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 15-parameter tool spanning four platforms with conditional fields, the description says nothing about platform-varying fee models, but the schema's per-parameter platform notes carry that load. No output schema exists, yet the description effectively states the returned quantity and its rounding, so the core gap is the absence of cross-platform behavioral framing.

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 all 15 parameters, including which platform each applies to. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific computation — the lowest price that leaves at least the target amount after fees — with a clear rounding policy. This makes it distinguishable in spirit from a forward fee calculator, but it never names or contrasts the siblings (fee, payout) that an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing: use this when you have a desired take-home and need the gross price to charge. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against fee, payout, or compare, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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