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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the supported operator set and an input→output mapping, but does not disclose how compound or quadratic inequalities are returned (e.g., interval notation, multiple solution branches), which is where an agent would most plausibly go wrong.

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 short sentences, operator set front-loaded, example immediately after. Nothing redundant and nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a solver tool the description leaves open whether the variable must be x, which complexities (compound, quadratic) are handled, and what form of answer to expect — gaps an agent could hit on first use.

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%, but the schema's own parameter description is only 'Inequality string.' The description earns credit by specifying the accepted relational operators and giving a concrete input→result example, which supplies syntax the schema does not state.

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?

A specific verb (solve) plus resource (inequalities), with the supported operator set (<, >, ≤, ≥) and a worked example. It is not explicitly differentiated from near-siblings such as calculator_linear_equation or calculator_equation_graph, so an agent must infer that this is the inequality-specific entry point.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like calculator_linear_equation, calculator_quadratic_equation, or calculator_numerical_solve. The worked example implies input format but says nothing about scope or exclusions.

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