get_calculation_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: result ordering ('largest first'), the two-call workflow, and the semantic distinction between declared and supported signs. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then workflow, then example queries — no filler sentences. The prose is dense with domain jargon and long clauses, which slightly taxes readability, but every sentence contributes meaning.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return fields, yet it clarifies the hardest-to-interpret ones, and it covers invocation order, parameter sourcing, and use cases. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: filing_id's provenance is given precisely, and link_role is explained both as a filter (the statement or note you want) and as a discoverable value via the first no-argument call. Both parameters are covered beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 opening sentence states a specific resource and scope: 'the issuer's own arithmetic in one filing: which concepts add up to which total.' It names the distinguishing artifacts (weight vs corrected_weight, is_corrected, corrected_count), so an agent can separate it from siblings like roll_up_metric or get_fact_decomposition.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing ('call it first without link_role... then again with the link_role'), states where to obtain the required filing_id ('from the source of get_fact or from get_entity_profile'), and lists concrete triggering questions. The when-to-use and parameter-flow guidance is fully worked out.

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