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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns descriptive metadata about the calculator rather than performing calculations, and it names the specific content areas. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect free, though zero parameters and the 'describe' framing make that largely implicit.

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 a single sentence that efficiently enumerates the tool's content coverage: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no redundant phrasing or filler, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 parameterless, descriptive tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what an agent will learn by calling it. It covers the main content categories but does not go into details such as format, length, or how the information is presented. Given the tool's simple purpose, this is nearly complete but slightly thin on delivery expectations.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context by noting that the calculator itself has inputs with units, ranges, and defaults, which is useful for agents inspecting the calculator. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 resource (the Long service leave calculator) and the scope of information it covers: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It is distinct from the sibling 'calculate' tool because it describes rather than executes, though it uses an elliptical noun-phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes'.

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 this tool should be used when an agent needs to know the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, or tables. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'calculate' or any other sibling, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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