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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool returns documentation about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, and by nature is a read-only describe operation. It could be more explicit that it performs no calculation, but the description does not hide or misrepresent behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the content scope and wastes no words. Every clause adds meaningful information about what the documentation tool covers.

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 describe tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what an agent will receive: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though it does not enumerate the actual calculator inputs or outputs, which is acceptable for a meta-description 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the empty schema is fully covered and there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately clarifies that it describes the calculator's inputs rather than taking its own.

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 identifies the tool as a documentation/description tool for the Cyprus non-dom SDC calculator, specifying exactly what it covers: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate, which presumably performs the calculation.

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 context is clear: an agent should use this tool to understand the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions, likely before or instead of invoking calculate. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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