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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals only that a computation happens, but says nothing about whether the result is Gregorian or Julian, the output format of the date, valid year ranges, or how invalid years are handled. For a pure compute tool this is a thin behavioral profile.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the label 'Easter Date:' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the core instruction is front-loaded and efficiently worded. There is no wasted text, though it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

The tool exposes two parameters where conceptually only a year is needed, and the description does not clarify whether to pass 'year' or 'input' - a critical ambiguity. There is also no output schema and no statement of return format, so an agent cannot confidently predict the result shape. For a low-complexity tool, this is fixable but currently incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already states, and the schema's own 'Input to process' description is vague. The description neither helps disambiguate the redundant 'input' parameter nor documents expected formats (e.g., string vs. integer year).

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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and a clear resource ('the Easter date for a year'). The purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool name well. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like x402-chinese-new-year or other date tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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, no stated exclusions, and no mention of calendar-system choices (Gregorian vs. Julian would have been useful). The agent gets no help in deciding between this and the many other date-related siblings.

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