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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal what the tool returns—information about inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables—but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it performs any calculation, or what the output format is. This is acceptable for a describe tool but not richly transparent.

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 sentence that efficiently enumerates the three main content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.

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 zero-parameter, descriptive tool with no output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool will tell them about the calculator. No critical detail is missing for deciding whether to invoke it.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful detail about what parameter information will be covered (units, ranges, defaults), even though the tool itself takes no parameters.

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 that this tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'calculate', which presumably performs the calculation rather than describing it.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would consult this before calling calculate to understand inputs and behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named.

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