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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the exact return contents (award, 15% fee rounded down to $5, net, totals), the rate year, formulas with citations flagged for attorney review, the not-legal-advice notice, the 'missing' status behavior, and the builder-key auth requirement. That is rich behavioral disclosure for a read-only 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 front-loaded with the core operation and the return shape, which is good. However, the 'same engine' claim is made twice (the calc-core sentence and the closing CD.Calc sentence), and the marketing framing about the app, website calculators, and Pro Workspace is redundant for an agent choosing a tool. Trimming those would sharpen it without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return values, and it does: award, fee, net, totals, rate year, cited formulas, and the legal notice. It also covers the error path and the auth requirement. For a nested multi-case calculator, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 reported schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: it explains that each case uses its own AWW and date of accident (its own max and min), its apportioned loss of use per member, any protracted healing period, prior payments, and credits. It also clarifies that cases are numbered and carry no names. It does not explain weeks_at_temporary_total or the body_part vocabulary in prose, which keeps it from a 5.

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 specific verb and resource: apportioning a schedule loss of use across two to six established claims of one claimant. It also states the scope that separates it from the single-claim sibling, namely that each case carries its own AWW, date of accident, and apportioned loss of use. An agent can tell this apart from calculate_slu_award without opening either 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?

The description gives clear conditions for use: two to six established claims, one claimant, New York State only, and a builder key is required. It also states the failure mode when an input is missing. It does not explicitly name the single-claim alternative (calculate_slu_award) for the one-claim case, so the routing is implied by the 'two to six' bound rather than stated.

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