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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it states the data is scoped to the authenticated user (an auth requirement) and that encrypted contents are never returned. It says nothing about paging cost, rate limits, or that unauthenticated calls fail, which a mutation-free list tool would still benefit from.

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?

Two tight sentences: the resource and scope come first, then the usage rationale, then the output constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the six parameters are well covered by the schema. The description supplies purpose, auth scoping, and the encrypted-contents caveat; only paging behavior and error conditions are left entirely to structured fields.

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 83%, so the schema already documents sort, cursor, offset, and the type filters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'by calculator type'; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb 'Lists' + resource 'saved calculations' + scope 'metadata ... by calculator type', which clearly separates it from load_saved_calculation (contents) and compare_saved_calculations (comparison). It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Use so an agent can help a user find a previously saved scenario before loading it' supplies a clear usage context and implicitly routes to load_saved_calculation as the follow-up step. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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