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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation (computes BoQ, renders standards). It adds behavioral details: tier restrictions, deliverables (xlsx, dxf, pdf), watermarking, and composite assembly components. No contradictions. However, it does not mention rate limits or authentication beyond 'anonymous callers welcome'.

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 well-structured, front-loading key information about tiers, standard restrictions, and assembly components. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but it is not verbose.

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 (30+ parameters, nested object, output schema exists), the description covers essential aspects: input examples, defaults, deliverables, and output modes. It does not explain the return structure, but the output schema fills that gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to make a correct call.

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 must compensate. It provides example parameters with typical values and ranges (e.g., internal_diameter=1.5, wall_thickness=0.15, invert_depth=3.5) and mentions that omitted parameters use sensible defaults. However, it does not describe all parameters, leaving many undocumented. This partial compensation earns a 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?

The description clearly states the tool computes a Bill of Quantities (BoQ) for precast concrete circular manholes. It specifies the composite assembly and distinguishes itself from similar tools by indicating the standard coverage (MMHW free, others paid). The verb 'compute' and resource 'manhole' are specific.

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 explicit context on when to use: free tier for MMHW, paid tier for others. It welcomes anonymous callers and mentions sensible defaults. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like compute_manhole_precast or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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