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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the tool returns both included and excluded items, specifically tax provisions, and provides links. This goes beyond the annotations and gives clear behavioral context about the output content.

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 packs essential information: what is returned, what is excluded, and that links are provided. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to call it correctly: the nature of the returned information and the presence of links. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters.

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 clearly states the tool returns a summary of what the QuantCalc engine models and excludes, including tax provisions out of scope, and links to methodology. This is a specific verb ('Returns') and resource (engine scope), and it differentiates from sibling tools that focus on assumptions, sources, or projections.

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 the tool is used to understand modeling scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria. An agent can infer the purpose, but there is no direct guidance on selecting this tool over siblings.

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