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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return content in detail (inputs with units, ranges, defaults; outputs; assumptions and tables), which implies a read-only metadata lookup. It stops short of explicitly stating no side effects occur or that it performs no computation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary content (inputs) and no filler. The parenthetical unit/range/default detail is high-value density rather than padding.

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, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, naming all three payload sections. The only gap is the missing relationship to `calculate`, which would help an agent sequence the two calls.

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 takes zero parameters, so 4 is the baseline per the schema-based rule. The description correctly implies no inputs are required to invoke it.

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 enumerates exactly what this tool returns: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and the assumptions and tables behind the calculation. That clearly separates it as a documentation/metadata tool from `calculate`, though it never states the verb ('describe'/'return') explicitly, relying on the noun phrase.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup tool to inspect before or instead of computing. There is no explicit 'call this before `calculate`' routing, and the sibling `calculate` is never named, so the key decision is left to inference.

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