get_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, and the follow-up directive is useful context, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, or what happens for an invalid formula_id. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the tool's output, and the second gives the invocation context. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers what is returned (inputs, gotchas, related calculators) and when to call it. It lacks explicit read-only and error-behavior statements, but the low complexity and clear output list make it mostly complete.

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 provides only the parameter name 'formula_id' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by tying the parameter to the prior search_calculator call, giving the agent a clear source for the value. It does not define format or constraints, but for a single self-descriptive parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('formula_id') and names the delivered content: inputs, gotchas, and related calculators. It is clear enough to distinguish this from search_calculator, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with other sibling tools in the purpose statement itself.

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?

'Call after search_calculator' provides explicit sequencing context, telling the agent when this tool should be invoked. It stops short of a full 5 because it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools besides the implied search_calculator.

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