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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by flagging data-quality signals — `low` marking low-confidence zones and the presence of `caveats` and `rules` — but says nothing about payload size, freshness, or caching, which matters for a large static dataset.

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 opening sentence largely restates the title, but the following sentence is dense and earns its place by enumerating every returned key with inline semantics (e.g. armour `slot`/`layer` behaviour, ammo tuple layout). Front-loaded and free of filler beyond the title echo.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so key by key, including the meaning of armour layer values and the low-confidence flag. The only gap is the overall response shape (single object vs. separate sections) and approximate size.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly does not waste space on parameter discussion.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it contains: weapons, ammo, attachments, armour, suits, zones, presets, rules and caveats. Framing it as 'the data behind https://rust.wiki/calculators/damage' implicitly separates it from the calculation itself, though it never names calculate_damage directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: by calling itself the data *behind* the calculator, an agent can infer this returns raw reference tables rather than a computed result. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to calculate_damage for actual damage computation.

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