site

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully states that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and lists the calculator's components, but it does not mention whether the tool has side effects, what its output looks like, or any prerequisites.

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 short and starts with the main action, but it contains an obvious redundancy ('calculator calculator') and presents the cost components as a run-on list. It would be cleaner and more readable as a structured breakdown.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core calculation context and a useful default-behavior note. However, it omits any statement of the return value and does not clarify potentially ambiguous parameters such as route or spouse string format.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a description and default, so the schema handles most parameter meaning. The description adds meaningful value by specifying that adult dependant fees are €7,500 each, which is not stated in the adultDependants parameter description.

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 names a specific action ('Run') and a specific resource ('Malta MPRP cost calculator') and enumerates the cost components, so an agent can tell this is a calculation tool rather than a describe tool. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like calculator_describe, though 'Run' implies execution.

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 alternatives such as calculator_describe or submit_enquiry. The imperative 'Run' implies a use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues are provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what content the tool returns (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or that no calculation is performed.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the scope of the tool. It wastes no words and 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 zero-parameter descriptive tool, the description sufficiently outlines the content coverage: inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting its relationship to the 'calculate' sibling, but no critical invocation information is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by indicating that the calculator's inputs have units, ranges, and defaults, even though it does not enumerate them. No invocation parameters are needed, so no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 conveys that this tool provides information about the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'calculate' tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes', so the purpose is implied rather than directly stated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe'. The agent must infer from the name and title that this is a descriptive utility rather than a computation tool.

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