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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world call, so the safety burden is lifted. The description still adds value beyond that: it discloses the external artifact produced ('a link to the full plan on calculiva.com') and the unit-parsing behavior ('Lengths accept feet and inches').

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly packed, with no filler sentences. It is a single long sentence, but each clause carries distinct information (inputs, outputs, units, return link).

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still notes the plan link and comparison output. Combined with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, the definition gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly; only routing guidance against siblings is missing.

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 every parameter (walls, rollWidth, rollLength, repeat, match, openings, trim, deductOpenings) is already documented in the schema. The description's brief parenthetical '(width, length, pattern repeat, match)' and the unit note merely restate schema content, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Counts the wallpaper rolls to buy') and enumerates the concrete outputs: drops per roll, cut placement, match waste, and straight/half-drop/random comparison. The wallpaper domain cleanly separates it from plan_flooring_order and plan_trim_order without needing to name them.

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 implies the context (estimating material before ordering wallpaper) but never states when to use this versus the sibling planning tools or any preconditions/exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the purpose statement alone.

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