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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful caveats about nominal values and design limitations, but does not disclose output format, rounding behavior, or material density assumptions beyond 'carbon steel'.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the action and key inputs, the second adds the caveat. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail 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 calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and limitations. It does not explicitly state the output unit (pounds), but this is strongly implied by 'price_per_lb' and the domain. Slightly more detail on output would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it restates that thickness can be decimal or fraction and that price_per_lb is optional, but these are already in the parameter descriptions.

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 computes carbon steel plate weight from thickness, width, and length in inches, with optional cost via price_per_lb. This specific verb+resource+inputs distinguishes it from sibling tools like steel_shape_weight, which targets structural shapes.

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 context that values are nominal, for estimating and orientation, not design guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like steel_shape_weight or steel_gauge_thickness, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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