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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, so the description does not need to explain safety. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the scanning + bisection approach and that it searches an interval for multiple roots. It does not mention limitations such as missed roots when the scan step is too large.

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 with no wasted wording. The core purpose and method are front-loaded and immediately usable.

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 tool is moderately complex, but the schema is fully described, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. The description supplies the key missing context: interval-based search for multiple roots using scanning + bisection. It could be slightly stronger by naming the closest single-root alternative.

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 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description only implies interval-based search and does not add parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies 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 states a specific verb and resource: find multiple roots of f(x)=0 over an interval. It also names the method, scanning + bisection. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as calculator_root or calculator_numerical_solve.

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 phrase 'over an interval' implies when the tool is appropriate, namely for interval-based multi-root search. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of calculator_root, calculator_numerical_solve, calculator_newton_raphson, or equation-specific solvers.

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