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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adequately discloses the tool's behavior by enumerating the content it returns (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables). For a pure documentation tool with no side effects, this is sufficient, though it does not mention any special conditions like auth or rate limits.

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 packs in the essential scope: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, assumptions, and tables. No fluff, no redundancy with the title, and all critical coverage areas are front-loaded.

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 0-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description tells an agent exactly what kind of content to expect: the calculator's inputs, outputs, assumptions, and tables. Nothing needed to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are not a concern here; the description correctly focuses on the informational content rather than 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 what the tool provides: the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, assumptions, and tables. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'calculate' tool by framing this as a descriptive/documentation tool rather than a computation tool, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'describes'.

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 context is implied by the name 'calculator_describe' and the sibling 'calculate': an agent should use this tool to understand the calculator before or instead of computing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives, so the selection rule is left to inference.

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