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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, and the description adds important behavioral context: each section consumes one daily slot, and non-linear items return INVALID_INPUT. No contradiction with 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 a single paragraph but well-structured: starts with core function, lists use cases, constraints, free tier info, and an example. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 (8 parameters, nested sections) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential concept, constraints, and provides an example. Some optional parameters are not detailed, but core usage is fully explained.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining critical parameters: assembly_slug must be a sectioned assembly, sections array with labels and run lengths, shared_params applied to all. An example illustrates usage. However, some parameters (deliverables, aggregate_boq, include_backup, include_section_boq) are not explicitly explained.

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 verb ('compute'), the resource ('sectioned/linear assembly across multiple sections'), and the output ('combined Bill of Quantities plus per-section results'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it is for multi-section assemblies like walls and drains, and notes that non-linear items return INVALID_INPUT.

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?

It explicitly says to use for walls, kerb runs, drains, or barriers that change length, and implies not for single-section assemblies. It also mentions free tier limitation. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are stated, though the context of single-section compute tools is clear from sibling names.

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