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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: free tier restrictions, anonymous caller support, default parameter behavior, freeboard back-calculation, and deliverables format. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and limitations.

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 paragraph with all essential information, front-loading free tier info and purpose. It is clear but could benefit from more structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) to improve scanability. Every sentence adds value, with minimal redundancy.

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 complexity (5 top-level parameters, nested params object with many fields, output schema present), the description covers core functionality, tier constraints, example usage, and key parameter behaviors. It lacks coverage of error cases or behavior when parameters are out of range, but overall is adequate for the complexity level.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for key parameters like stem_height with range examples (2–8 m), stem_thickness_top (0.2–0.6), stem_thickness_bottom (0.25–0.9), freeboard (clearance), and deliverables (any subset of xlsx, dxf, pdf). However, many other parameters (toe_length, heel_length, etc.) are left undocumented, so compensation is partial.

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 BoQ for an in-situ reinforced concrete cantilever retaining wall, specifying components like toe, heel, stem, excavation, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on 'cantilever' wall, which differentiates from other retaining wall types like gravity or counterfort walls.

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 clear context on when to use (cantilever wall BoQ) and tier limitations (free tier only for MMHW). It includes an example call with parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among sibling tools like compute_gravity_wall or compute_counterfort_wall, so it lacks exclusions.

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