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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety bar is low. The description goes beyond them by disclosing interaction behavior that the annotations cannot: omitted inputs are either collected through client-side forms or surfaced back as a list of questions to ask. This is genuinely useful runtime behavior for the calling agent.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the fallback behavior placed second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the important return case (a list of missing inputs when forms are unsupported) plus the read-only nature implied by the annotations. It leaves the success-result shape and error handling for unknown calculator names unstated, a minor gap for a dispatcher tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, including that arguments holds the calculator's inputs with an optional currency. The description only reiterates the name-source and adds no argument syntax, required-key, or naming conventions beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("run any rahuldsarker.co calculator by its tool name") and names the sibling (find_calculator) that supplies the name, so the agent can separate it from the ~100 sibling calculators and from find_calculator itself without opening a schema.

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 parenthetical "(from find_calculator)" establishes the prerequisite workflow: discover the tool name first, then run it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement about what happens if the name is invalid, but the usage context is clear.

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