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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the dose is 'advisory' (a recommendation, not a guaranteed prescription) and limited to 'public catalog products,' which constrains applicability. This goes beyond the annotation-provided information without contradicting it.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, and every word earns its place by conveying purpose, scope, and output type.

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 tool's low complexity, full schema parameter descriptions, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand inputs and safety. It could have elaborated on the returned structure, but the output schema covers that, so no significant gap exists.

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 names 'public catalog product' and 'tank volume,' which map to product_name and volume_liters, but does not add additional detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The optional brand_name is not mentioned in the description, but the schema documents it adequately.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'advisory fertilizer dose' for a specific product and tank volume. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_equipment_requirements and calculate_tank_volume, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The scope is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_weekly_dose_totals or generate_fertilization_plan. It lacks explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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