calculate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a dependency on prior steps in the flow, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what the response contains. This leaves key behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 one short sentence plus a compact flow arrow, with no filler or redundant content. The purpose is front-loaded, though the flow could be more self-explanatory. Structurally it is efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with a nested free-form args object and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It omits the meaning of the parameters, the expected args structure, and the return value, and the flow hints at prerequisites without explaining them.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention formula_id or args at all. Neither the schema nor the description explains what values args should take or how formula_id is to be used, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 'Execute a calculator' uses a specific verb and resource, and the flow 'search_calculator → get_calculator → calculate' places it as the final step, distinguishing it from sibling tools. However, it does not clarify what a calculator is or what 'execute' entails, so it is not as precise as it could be.

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 flow 'search_calculator → get_calculator → calculate' explicitly orders the steps and tells the agent to use calculate after retrieving a calculator. It provides clear context for when to call this tool, though it does not state exclusions or alternatives for other types of calculations.

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