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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as free tier restriction, anonymous caller acceptance, and use of sensible defaults. While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, the description adds context about tiers and deliverables. It does not contradict annotations.

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 relatively long but well-structured with front-loaded tier information and an example call. Almost every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by grouping standard-related info. Still, it earns a 4 for clarity.

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 complexity (many parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers essential aspects: tier limitations, an example call, deliverables, and component description. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema. It is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though more parameter details would help.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by explaining the composite nature of the gully and providing example parameters with ranges (e.g., pot_internal_diameter_mm 300–750). However, it does not describe all 24 parameters individually, leaving many undocumented. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it partially compensates.

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 name and title clearly indicate a tool for computing a gully with connection BoQ. The description explains it is a composite drainage inlet with specific components (gully pot, grating, kerb outlet, connection drain), and the mention of four-standard rendering with sub-codes distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_catchpit or compute_highway_drainage_channel.

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 explicitly states that the free tier only supports MMHW, and that other standards require a paid tier. It provides an example call and mentions that omitted parameters use defaults. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings or state when to use it instead of alternatives like compute_catchpit or compute_manhole.

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