calculate_reading_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is a read-only estimation and mentions the return format. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits like potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, though these are minimal for a calculator.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and includes a useful cross-reference without any wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core functionality, return format, and a pointer to related tools. A minor gap is the lack of mention of the default reading speed, but the schema handles that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters. It simply mentions 'based on word count', which is already in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to estimate reading time based on word count. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('reading time'), distinguishing it from the many other calculators in the sibling list. The mention of the return format '{hours_minutes}' adds clarity.

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 provides a hint to 'see list_bundles for related education calculators', which offers some context for when to use this tool versus others. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to, nor does it name specific alternatives.

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