Calculate the operational economics of an AI agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool works 'from explicit assumptions' and that a canonical_url is returned for citation, which are useful behavioral details beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler: the deliverable list is front-loaded, the use case follows, and the currency/citation caveats are the last necessary details. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter computational tool with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description covers selection, currency consistency, and citation behavior. It does not explain the calculation formulas, but that is not required for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds cross-parameter guidance by requiring all monetary inputs to be in the same currency and by framing inputs as explicit assumptions. This goes slightly beyond what individual property descriptions provide.

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 (calculate) and enumerates the exact outputs: monthly operating cost, cost per verified outcome, manual baseline, savings, ROI, and break-even success rate. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from the many get_/list_ siblings and the other calculate_* tools in the same domain.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for an agent business case or scenario comparison', giving a clear selection context. It does not name the sibling calculate_* tools or give an exclusion criterion, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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