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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of returned content (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) but does not state whether the tool is purely informational/read-only or how the information is presented. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what the tool covers with no filler or repetition. Every clause carries informational weight.

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 parameterless describe tool, the description gives adequate context about what information will be returned and the scope of the description. It does not explain the return format, but given the low complexity and empty schema, this is a minor omission.

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 an empty input schema, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description's mention of calculator inputs is about the calculator being described, not the tool's own inputs, and adds useful context about units, ranges, and defaults.

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 as providing information about the calculator: its inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This distinguishes it from likely calculation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to understand the calculator's inputs, outputs, or assumptions before using it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use versus alternatives like calculate or enquiry tools.

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