calculate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-mutating profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the supported operators, functions, and example expressions, which goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second compactly lists supported syntax and gives three illustrative examples. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the input format thoroughly. It implicitly communicates that the result is numeric through examples. It does not explicitly state the return type or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, this is a minor gap.

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%, but the description significantly enriches the single parameter by detailing the expression grammar, listing functions and operators, and providing concrete examples. This turns the vague 'Math expression to evaluate' into a well-specified input format.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Evaluate a financial/business math expression.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling specialized calculators by positioning it as the generic math evaluator. Supported operators and functions further clarify intended use.

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 description implies use for general financial/business math but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gross_margin or us_income_tax_estimate. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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