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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and enumerates the outputs (minimum investment, fees, currency, total outlay), giving the agent a clear expectation of results. It does not explicitly state that no data is written or how dependants alter the fees, though the read-only nature of a calculator is strongly implied.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact list of outputs and a fallback note. The redundant 'calculator calculator' phrase and the slightly list-like structure are minor defects, but every clause earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool computes and the fallback behavior, so an agent can predict results well enough to invoke it. It does not explain the cryptic programme enum values, but the sibling calculator_describe tool likely covers programme semantics, and the schema already lists the available options.

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 schema fully documents both parameters, including the programme enum and the dependants default/maximum, so the description need not repeat those details. The description adds a useful note about default fallback and provides output context, but it does not explain how dependants affect the calculation or what each programme code means. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Run the Golden visa cost calculator', and lists the four calculated outputs, making the tool's purpose reasonably distinct from the sibling describe/enquiry/submit tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling, and the doubled 'calculator calculator' is a minor distraction, so it stops short of a top score.

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 use when a Golden visa cost calculation is needed, and it notes that omitted inputs fall back to documented defaults, which helps guide invocation. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over calculator_describe or the enquiry tools, leaving alternative routing mostly to inference.

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