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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool provides explanatory information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which implies a non-mutating, informational operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed or that the result is descriptive text.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core content: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 zero-parameter, informational description tool, the description covers the essential content areas sufficiently. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it is a read-only/descriptive tool and by contrasting it with 'calculate', but given the low complexity, the description is nearly sufficient.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description's reference to calculator inputs and outputs is about the described calculator, not about this tool's own parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline of 4 applies and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 that the tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, and the title reinforces that it explains what the calculator computes. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate' tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool instead of the sibling 'calculate' tool or the other enquiry-related tools. An agent would have to infer from the name that this is a descriptive/informational call rather than an actual calculation.

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