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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the tool returns 'questions' rather than performing work, i.e. it is an interrogation step. It stops short of saying how unknown calculatorIds behave or whether partial 'supplied' answers change the questions returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly achieved by omitting parameter detail rather than by tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the two-step workflow (prepare then run_calculation) and the meaning of the 'supplied' object, both of which an agent needs to invoke this correctly rather than guessing.

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% and the description mentions no parameter at all. The enum on calculatorId is self-explanatory from the schema, but 'supplied' is an opaque nested free-form object whose purpose (pre-filling known answers, filtering questions?) is documented nowhere. With coverage far below 50%, the description was required to compensate and does not.

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 gives a specific verb ('returns') and a specific resource ('the exact questions and typed inputs required before a deterministic calculation can run'), which clearly frames this as a pre-flight/discovery step. It implicitly distinguishes itself from run_calculation by scoping itself to what is needed *before* the computation, but never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'before a deterministic calculation can run' implies the ordering (prepare, then run), which is useful contextual usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of discover_calculators, and no guidance on whether this is mandatory for every calculation or optional when all inputs are already known.

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