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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that inputs are stored unencrypted, that server-computed results are included, and that saved data is later retrievable via list/load. It omits details like overwrite behavior for duplicate names or authentication/error conditions.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to use, and storage behavior. The key constraint (unencrypted storage) is front-loaded after the core purpose.

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?

Given a full output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description covers the essential behavioral traits. It could be more complete by mentioning handling of existing scenarios (overwrite vs. error) and pointing to 'update_calculation' as the alternative for saved scenarios.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including the calculationType enum and nested inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Saves a calculator scenario to the authenticated user's stored history'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'update_calculation' or 'list_saved_calculations', so it stops short of a 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?

It gives a clear triggering context: 'Use when the user asks to save, keep or remember a scenario.' However, it offers no exclusions or alternative routing, such as using 'update_calculation' for an already-saved scenario, which would be needed for a 5.

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