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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the categories of information returned (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), but does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or describe the return format (e.g., structured vs. text). This is adequate but leaves gaps for a metadata tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the returned content. It is appropriately sized and wastes little space, though the phrasing 'The inputs this calculator takes' could be slightly clearer as 'Returns the inputs...'.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should fully carry the burden. It identifies the return categories but omits the return format (structured JSON vs. text), the fact that no arguments are needed, and any safety context. It is minimally adequate but not complete for an agent to call with full confidence.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than what it accepts.

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 makes clear this tool describes the late payment calculator's inputs, outputs, and assumptions, which is distinct from the sibling 'calculate' that presumably performs the calculation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling, leaving the distinction implicit through the tool name and content.

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 alternatives like 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe'. The description only lists what it returns, leaving the agent to infer that it should be called before calculating to understand the calculator.

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