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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to cover those safety aspects. It adds value by mentioning 'previously saved' and 'Access across sessions,' indicating persistence behavior beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a single defining sentence followed by two helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 load tool with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, provides usage examples, and notes cross-session access. No critical missing information is apparent.

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 already documents the only parameter, 'name,' with a clear description and example. The tool description also provides examples ('portfolio_return', 'circle_area'), reinforcing the expected format. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no fundamentally new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Load previously saved calculation result from workspace.' It uses a specific verb (load) and resource (variable from workspace), and the examples ('load_variable("portfolio_return")') reinforce its purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool workspace_save by focusing on retrieving saved results.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for retrieving previously saved calculation results, and the examples show typical variable names. It implies usage after workspace_save and across sessions, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over calculation tools.

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