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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing what the tool returns — every calculator plus the fields each accepts — which is exactly what an agent needs to plan a follow-up run_calculator call.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and its payoff front-loaded. The parenthetical list and 'and more' are slightly loose but earn their place by signaling breadth of coverage.

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, yet the description carries the return-value burden by stating that each calculator's fields are included, which is the key fact for a discovery tool. A note on ordering or count would be nice but is not essential for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description correctly implies a no-argument enumeration and adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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 (list) and resource (Dadras's legal calculators), enumerates concrete contents (diya, inheritance shares, court fees, lawyer's fees, court deadlines), and explicitly ties itself to the run_calculator sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from run_calculator and the other calculate_* tools immediately.

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 trailing 'for run_calculator' makes the intended workflow clear: call this to discover available calculators and their fields before invoking run_calculator. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you already know the calculator name), but the context is unambiguous.

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