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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the call is UI-driven rather than agent-driven, but says nothing about return values, side effects, or 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and the routing constraint front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 an internal, non-assistant-facing tool the description does enough to route an agent away, and no output schema means return values need no explanation. But the two required parameters, including a nested object, are entirely undocumented anywhere, so the definition is not self-sufficient if the tool is ever invoked.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for both 'slug' and 'values', yet it mentions neither. Nothing explains what a slug identifies or what key/value pairs 'values' should contain (number-or-string, nested object), leaving a caller unable to construct a valid call from the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Recalculates a calculator card.' This is clearly distinct from creating or listing calculators. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling run_calculator, which sounds closely related, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives both a trigger ('after the user changes a value') and an explicit exclusion ('Used by the card itself, not by the assistant'), which strongly steers an agent away. It does not name the alternative tool (run_calculator) that an assistant should use instead.

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