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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior: missing inputs fall back to documented defaults. However, it does not state whether the tool is side-effect-free, whether it reads external data, or what happens on invalid input.

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 compact and front-loaded, but it contains a duplicated phrase ('calculator calculator') and a slightly run-on colon list. It is concise in size but not polished in structure.

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?

The description lists several result areas and the default fallback behavior, which helps since there is no output schema. Still, it omits the return format and any guidance on how this tool relates to calculator_describe, leaving an agent to infer important context.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter's meaning and default. The description only reiterates the default fallback behavior, adding no new parameter-level insight.

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 names a specific action ('Run') and resource ('New Zealand notice period calculator'), and it lists the calculation output areas. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from calculator_describe, but the verb and output list make it recognizable as the compute tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calculator_describe or the enquiry siblings, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is the imperative 'Run', which is implicit rather than explicit.

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