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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload ('slug, name, category and input names'), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, though it stays silent on result ordering and pagination behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose first, return shape second, next-step routing third. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information 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 simple read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information and the workflow handoff to siblings. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description adds extra meaning by demonstrating the kind of keyword input the query parameter accepts ('runway', 'break even', 'roas', 'loan payment'), which clarifies matching semantics beyond the schema's generic wording.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find MonsiTools calculators by keyword') with concrete example queries, and explicitly positions the tool within the sibling chain (describe_calculator for details, calculate to run). An agent can distinguish it from both siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly describes the workflow context: search first, then describe_calculator, then calculate. It names the alternatives and the order to use them, though it does not state when NOT to use search (e.g., if a slug is already known, call describe_calculator directly).

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