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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is low, and the description adds real behavioral context: how trim pieces are packed (all walls and types on shared stock) and that it compares this against one order per wall, ranked by total length bought, then offcut, then boards. It does not cover failure modes or size limits, but the added planning logic is substantive.

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?

Purpose and composition are front-loaded in the first clause, with the packing/comparison detail following. The second sentence is dense and slightly long-winded, but every clause carries information about outputs or optimization behavior.

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?

A rich output schema exists, so return values need no narration, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers composition, argument inheritance and the key packing/comparison rule; only explicit routing-away-from-siblings and any input limits are absent.

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% and the schema itself already explains every argument, including that stock, kerf and extra are shared. The description only restates that the same arguments apply and hints at the stock-length comparison; it adds little syntactic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Builds one consolidated order sheet') plus exactly what the sheet contains (cartons, boards per stock length, rolls, offcuts, cut list, CSV). It is clearly the consolidating tool among the plan_* siblings, and it names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent by saying to 'pass the same arguments as plan_flooring_order, plan_trim_order and plan_wallpaper_order', which tells the caller this is the one-shot combined alternative. It stops short of an explicit when-not (e.g. use plan_* individually if you only need one material), so it is clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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