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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (units, ranges, defaults, outputs, assumptions, tables), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the return format, that the tool is read-only and side-effect free, or that it takes no arguments.

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 compact sentence that enumerates the useful content without padding. It is slightly weakened by being a fragment with no leading verb, so the payload is not front-loaded with what the tool actually does.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only source of return-value information — it enumerates the categories well but not their form (structured vs. prose, static vs. computed) or how an agent should apply them to a subsequent `calculate` call.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the tool is called without arguments.

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 is a noun fragment listing contents (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables) rather than a verb-led statement like 'Returns documentation about...'. Combined with the title, an agent can infer this is a describe/metadata tool distinct from the sibling `calculate`, but the inference is required rather than stated.

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 call this versus `calculate` — the obvious pairing in the sibling list. Nothing says whether this should be consulted before invoking the calculator, or that it is a safe read that requires no arguments.

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