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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich detail: refusal of missing/blank required inputs before computation, trust metadata with citation URL/resolvedInputs/warnings, visibility truth-table semantics, hidden-controller handling, and CHECK/STOP verdicts. This far exceeds a minimal safety statement and discloses exactly what gets validated, retained, or flagged.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most content is load-bearing given a complex calculation engine. However, the description is a dense, unstructured wall of run-on sentences covering visibility truth tables and migration edge cases, which is hard to parse and could be trimmed or segmented.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates thoroughly by describing return values (outputs keyed by named range including status, plus a trust block with citation URL, resolvedInputs, and warnings). For a nested-input, version-pinned calculation tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: platform_version pins both validation and computation to an immutable version, and inputs are validated against a reviewed contract with table-shape refusal. These are semantic constraints the schema only gestures at.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (run) and resource (calculator) with explicit inputs. It further clarifies that validation and computation happen through a proxy against a resolved version contract, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_calculator_schema. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer it over siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives concrete operating guidance: inspect get_calculator_schema first, always read Model_Status and status outputs, and note that pinned older contracts require all inputs during migration. It does not explicitly frame a when-not-to-use or a direct A/B choice against siblings, but the conditional behaviors amount to clear usage context.

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