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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states what content the tool returns (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, limitations, or access requirements. For a descriptive tool this is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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 single, tightly structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and enumerates the key content categories efficiently.

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 adequately enumerates the return categories: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It omits formatting details or examples, but for a documentation-description tool this level of detail is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic clarity by indicating that the 'inputs' mentioned are the calculator's documented inputs, not arguments the agent must supply to this describe tool.

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 identifies the tool's resource (the calculator) and scope: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'calculate' because it describes documentation content rather than performing a calculation, though it relies somewhat on the tool name for the active verb.

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 implies this tool is for understanding the calculator's inputs, outputs, defaults, and assumptions, rather than for running a calculation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools or mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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