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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds one genuinely extra behavioral fact — the spec is 'live', i.e. resolved at call time rather than cached — plus what the response contains. It does not say what happens if the calculator_id is stale or unknown.

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; the resource and its three returned facets appear immediately.

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 names the three things returned, which is the main completeness win. But the returned concepts are undefined and the identifier's origin is unstated, so an agent still has to guess before its first successful call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the single parameter is documented only by its name. The phrase 'for one ... site calculator' does convey that calculator_id selects exactly one calculator, but nothing says its format or that identifiers come from list_calculators, leaving a real discovery gap.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus a clearly scoped resource: the spec (field contract, source, risk class) of a single site calculator. That distinguishes it from list_calculators (enumeration) and run_calculator (execution). The only shortfall is domain jargon ('field contract', 'risk class') that an unfamiliar agent cannot fully decode.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_calculators or run_calculator, and no prerequisite guidance. A reader must infer that this is an inspection step performed before running or configuring a calculator.

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