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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says what is checked. It does not state whether parameters are ignored, what inputs are valid, what the return value is, or whether the call is read-only. Schema notes like 'discarded after the shape check' hint at behavior, but the description itself adds none.

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 text is short, but it is under-specified rather than economically structured. 'Whether Hebrew year is embolismic' is a noun phrase with no indication of input, output, or invocation pattern. Important information that would earn a higher conciseness score is absent, not compressed.

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?

This tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is a single clause. An agent cannot tell whether to call it with no arguments or with some subset of the nine parameters, nor what response to expect. The definition is insufficient for even a minimal correct invocation.

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%, which would normally set a baseline of 3, but the description adds no connection between the tool's purpose and any parameter. The nine optional string properties — ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query — are unrelated to a Hebrew year, and no parameter is identified as the year. An agent cannot determine which parameter, if any, to populate.

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 states a recognizable predicate — whether a Hebrew year is embolismic — so it is not a tautology. However, it does not specify which of the nine schema parameters carries the Hebrew year, and the term 'embolismic' is obscure without context. The purpose is clear in isolation but not actionable against the given 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or stated conditions. The sibling list includes calendar/timezone-related tools, but the description does not differentiate hebrew-leap from them. It is a bare predicate rather than usage direction.

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