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, but it only states the predicate. It does not say whether a boolean is returned, how the answer is computed, or what happens with the many optional parameters.

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 a bare fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits the input mapping and expected use, so there is no structure that helps an agent parse how to call it.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and ten optional parameters, this description is not enough to invoke it correctly. The missing Hebrew-year input mapping is a critical gap, forcing the agent to guess which parameter to use.

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 describes all ten parameters individually, but none is a Hebrew year. The description never bridges its core concept to any parameter, so an agent cannot tell which parameter to populate to ask about a specific year.

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 phrase clearly expresses the predicate: the tool reports whether a Hebrew year is embolismic (a leap year). It is more than a tautology and is specific to a distinct domain, though it reads as a noun phrase rather than an imperative and leaves the required input ambiguous.

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 sentence explains when to call hebrew-leap, what kind of task it fits, or when to prefer another sibling tool. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are given.

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