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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: missing inputs fall back to documented defaults. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is a pure calculation with no side effects, nor does it clarify the return format or whether the listed items are outputs.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but the duplicated word in 'calculator calculator' is sloppy. The colon-separated list of output values is compact, but it is not clearly labeled as outputs or inputs, which slightly weakens the structural clarity.

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 calculator with three well-documented parameters, the description gives the core purpose and hints at the outputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should more explicitly state what the tool returns and ideally the relationship between the inputs and listed output values. It also omits any connection to sibling tools.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions and defaults for profit, refundType, and distributed. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 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 tool as the Malta shareholder refund calculator and lists the key values it handles: Malta tax paid, profit available to distribute, dividend paid, and shareholder refund claimable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculator_describe or enquiry_describe, and the repeated word 'calculator' creates minor ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as calculator_describe, enquiry_fields, or submit_enquiry. The only usage-related note is that missing inputs fall back to defaults, which addresses parameter handling rather than tool selection.

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