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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding genuine behavior: worked steps are returned, unsupported input yields an explicit refusal with nearest-topic suggestions, and it 'never guesses'. It doesn't add much else, but for a read-only tool this is solid added context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then failure mode. The topic enumeration is lengthy but earns its place by defining what is and isn't supported; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden ('answer with worked steps') and the error path. Only the shape of the worked-steps response is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the nl/en enum and the 240-char cap. The description reinforces the Dutch-or-English input and the 'short' constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema examples.

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?

A specific verb+resource pair ('Solve a short maths question... return the answer with worked steps') with a concrete topic list that bounds scope precisely. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from run_calculator, so an agent has to infer that this one handles word problems/equations while the sibling presumably evaluates raw expressions.

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 implies when it applies (short Dutch/English maths questions in the enumerated topics) and tells what happens when the question falls outside that scope. But it never names run_calculator or list_calculators as alternatives, nor states when to prefer one over the other.

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