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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults and enumerates the computed output values. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens on invalid input, though these are less critical for a calculator.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, but it contains the redundant phrase 'calculator calculator' and lists outputs in a flat, semicolon-separated run-on structure. It earns its place overall, but the wording is awkward and could be more polished.

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 moderate-complexity calculator with no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating what the tool returns by listing the four output components and mentioning default fallback behavior. It could be more explicit about the output format, but the essentials for invoking the tool correctly are present.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds the fallback-to-defaults behavior and lists outputs, but it does not materially enrich the meaning of the parameters themselves. A baseline 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 running the Australian notice of termination calculator and lists the specific values it produces (NES notice, extra week, minimum notice, applicable notice period). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like calculator_describe, but the verb 'Run' and the resource name make its role reasonably distinct.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as calculator_describe or submit_enquiry, and it does not state prerequisites or exclusions. The only behavioral note is about missing inputs falling back to defaults, which is about invocation behavior, not usage context.

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