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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes inputs and outputs but does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or requires permissions. For a simple calculation tool, this is acceptable but incomplete.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a pointer to list_bundles. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and directly states inputs and outputs. No extraneous information.

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 two-parameter calculation tool, the description covers all essential elements: formula, inputs, outputs, and application context. An output schema exists (not shown), so the description does not need to detail return values. It is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates the inputs (temperature °C, humidity %) without adding any new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 computes dew point temperature using the Magnus formula and gives application areas (HVAC, weather, comfort analysis). While it does not explicitly differentiate from many sibling calculator tools, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 suggests use cases (HVAC, weather, comfort analysis) and points to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or what alternatives are better suited.

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