calculate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the calculation function, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, or what the output format will be. The lack of side-effect information is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient and free of verbosity, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not preview the response structure, clarify the role of required vs optional parameters, or hint at constraints like weight limits (which are in the schema but not summarized). The agent has to rely entirely on the schema for operational details, making the description contextually weak.

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 input schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that the tool 'calculates cost and delivery times' for Russian Post, which is a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'delivery_time' which may also return delivery times. However, the emphasis on cost makes the distinction implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings like 'delivery_time' or 'track'. No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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