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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the catalog composition, that input names are returned, and that nothing is stored. The "Read-only" clause partly repeats the annotation, which keeps this just below a 5.

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 scoping statement and the catalog are front-loaded, and every later sentence (one-off use, run_calculator next, list_templates alternative, read-only) carries distinct information. The parenthetical list of 23 calculators is long but earns its place as the disambiguation payload; it could have been trimmed to group labels without much loss.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs: what is listed, how to filter, what to do next, and the sibling to avoid. The only gap is the exact response shape (field names per calculator), which is acceptable given the small fixed catalog.

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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter is already well documented with Arabic/English examples and match fields, so the baseline is 3. The description nevertheless adds value by enumerating the 23 calculator names, which effectively tells the agent what search terms will hit (zakat, vat, ovulation, etc.) and that omitting the query returns all 23.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Lists the 23 quick calculators with their input names," and then names the full catalog split into 13 Softwiro and 10 Qintar calculators. This makes it immediately distinguishable from list_templates (multi-row tracking sheets) and from run_calculator (execution). An agent knows exactly what it gets back without opening the schema.

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 states the selection condition explicitly: use this for a one-off calculation that does not need a spreadsheet, then call run_calculator; use list_templates for multi-row tracking sheets. That is a clear when-to-use plus a named alternative for the adjacent case. The only minor omission is that calculate and get_schema are not mentioned, but the core routing decision is fully covered.

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