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 only restates the purpose without disclosing the calculation basis, output format, currency, or the fact that it also handles 40% silver Kennedy halves and 35% war nickels. The description adds little beyond the title.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains zero redundant or filler wording.

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?

While the parameter schema is detailed, there is no output schema and the description does not mention the return value, spot price integration, or rounding behavior. The 'pre-1965' qualifier is also misleading given the 40% Kennedy parameter. The description is insufficient for a calculation tool of this complexity.

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 schema describes all 6 parameters with silver content per coin (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema is fully self-sufficient, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Calculates') and a clear resource ('silver melt value') for 'pre-1965 US coinage', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_spot_prices. However, the description inaccurately says 'pre-1965' while the schema includes 'kennedy_40' (1965-1970) halves, creating ambiguity about the exact coin set.

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 implies its usage (when silver melt value is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_spot_prices. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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