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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is returned, but no additional behavioral details such as error behavior or special conditions. This is adequate with annotations present, but not exceptional.

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 consists of two sentences, with the first sentence stating the resource set and scope and the second providing a concrete JSON example. There is no filler and the key action 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 tool with one optional parameter, a clear purpose, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It lists the kinds of guides returned, says it works for one or all tools, and gives an example. No missing information is necessary for correct invocation.

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 schema description already fully documents the single 'tool' parameter, including the omit-for-all behavior and the list of valid values. The description's example illustrates usage but does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 concrete deliverable (standard prompt template, argument template, output-interpretation guide, resources) and clearly identifies the tool as a discovery helper. This distinguishes it from the calculator siblings, which perform calculations rather than return usage guidance.

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 phrase 'so you can call them correctly without guessing' clearly indicates when to use this tool: before invoking other SmartMoney77 tools when usage details are unclear. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like list_calculators, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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