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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the panel count is a 'starting' plan, echo is estimated before and after, prices are exact only 'when they are available', and panels are priced as Burch Fabrics Prime Time while other fabrics are priced elsewhere. That pricing caveat is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by inputs then outputs, so the agent learns what it gets before what it needs. The final fabric-pricing sentence is a useful caveat, though it is slightly dense and could be tighter.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates panel size and count, echo before/after, exact prices, shipping statement and product link. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and a full annotation set, the only soft spot is that it doesn't clarify how authoritative or approximate the recommendation is beyond the word 'starting'.

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% with units, ranges and an enum already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces units (feet) and the room-use input but adds no format, precision, or edge-case guidance beyond 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 first sentence states a specific outcome — planning panel count and current cost for a room — with a clear verb-plus-resource framing that an agent can map to a task. It is distinguishable from asp_calculate_room_acoustics in spirit (panels + pricing vs. raw acoustics), but it never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 tells the agent what inputs to supply ('length, width and ceiling height in feet and what the room is used for'), which implies the calling context. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus asp_calculate_room_acoustics or asp_start_free_room_analysis, and no when-not conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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