site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, which is useful behavioral information. It also hints that the tool returns three notice values. However, it does not clarify side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, though a calculator is likely pure.

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 sentence and front-loads the action, but the redundant 'calculator calculator' and the semicolon-separated output list make it slightly awkward. It is concise overall, but the wording suggests a lack of polish rather than deliberate minimalism.

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 simple calculator with no output schema, the description lists the expected return values and the fallback behavior, which is helpful. But it does not explain how 'Notice that applies' is derived from the statutory and contractual values, nor how the 'direction' parameter affects the result. An agent can invoke it with the schema's defaults, but some semantic context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all three parameters with types, defaults, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond listing output categories, which does not compensate for or extend the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a notice period calculator and lists the three outputs (statutory, contractual, and applicable notice), making the function clear. The phrase 'calculator calculator' is redundant, but the verb 'Run' plus the named resource and output list are sufficient to distinguish it from the describe/enquiry siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. However, the tool name 'calculate', title 'Notice period calculator', and sibling names (calculator_describe, enquiry_describe) imply this is the tool to invoke for performing a calculation rather than describing or querying. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an informational, read-only purpose by saying it describes inputs and outputs, but it never explicitly states that the call is non-mutating, returns documentation rather than calculations, or has no side effects.

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, compact sentence with no filler words, and it front-loads the resource being described. It loses a point only because it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-led instruction.

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 documentation tool, the description adequately captures the scope of what will be returned. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and with no output schema or annotations, these gaps leave the agent relying on inference about side effects and when to invoke the tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately mentions that inputs are covered as part of the tool's descriptive content, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.

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 subject (the notice period calculator) and enumerates what the tool covers: inputs with units/ranges/defaults, outputs, and assumptions/tables. This distinguishes it from calculate and the enquiry-related siblings, though it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb statement 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of calculate, enquiry_describe, or submit_enquiry. The sibling names imply calculator_describe is an explanatory companion to calculate, but the description does not state this or provide any when-to-use / when-not-to-use conditions.

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