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 clearly indicates that this is an informational/descriptive tool returning documentation-style content rather than performing calculations. It does not explicitly say 'does not calculate,' but the wording strongly implies it.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently enumerates the tool's coverage: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. There is no filler or redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 describe tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context about what content the tool will return. The only gap is that it does not explain its workflow placement relative to sibling tools, such as suggesting to call it before calculate.

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 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the calculator's conceptual inputs rather than MCP invocation parameters, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states what the tool does: it describes the inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables of the Malta stamp duty calculator. This distinguishes it from the calculate sibling, which presumably performs the calculation, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 use case is implied: call this tool to learn about calculator inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions before calculating. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over calculate or explain its relationship to enquiry_describe, leaving some room for inference.

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