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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval action and discloses the output categories: engine version, official carrier sources, and limitations. It doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or errors, but for a simple getter it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 description is one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes information about what the tool returns and for which calculation contexts.

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 adequately summarizes output contents for a low-complexity getter, but there is no output schema and no annotation support. It lacks parameter usage guidance and explicit differentiation from calculation siblings, leaving an agent to infer some decisions.

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%, and the description never mentions carrier or calculationType directly. It indirectly maps to calculationType values by naming TCO, contract refund, and combo discount, but it does not explain how to select values or the meaning of 'all', nor does it clarify carrier usage.

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 verb ('returns') and a concrete resource: engine versions, official carrier sources, and limitations for the calculation formulas. It also enumerates the covered calculation types (TCO, contract refund, combo discount), which distinguishes it from the calculate_* sibling tools.

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: when an agent needs evidence, sources, or version info rather than performing a calculation, this is the tool. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the calculate_* siblings, and there is no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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