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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety/behavior burden. It frames the tool as informational and lists the material it returns, but it never explicitly states that invoking the tool is a read-only operation and does not perform a calculation. The wording 'outputs it returns' could momentarily be read as the calculator executing.

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 core content and packs useful specifics (units, ranges, defaults, outputs, assumptions, tables) with no filler or redundancy.

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, no-output-schema description tool, the description fully covers what an agent will get: input specifications, return values, and the calculator's model assumptions. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; this meets the 0-params baseline. The description adds no parameter detail, but none 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?

States exactly what the tool provides: the calculator's inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This clearly identifies the Florida solar cost calculator as the resource and distinguishes describe from calculate/enquiry siblings.

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 for inspecting calculator metadata, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of calculate or enquiry tools, and it gives no exclusion criteria. An agent could infer 'use when you need the calculator's assumptions and definitions,' but that guidance is not stated.

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