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

The description transparently discloses authentication requirements and returns TIER_INSUFFICIENT error, aligning with readOnlyHint annotation (no state change). It mentions behavior for deliverables parameter (one-shot download URLs). No contradictions 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 well-structured: starts with critical tier info, then purpose, example parameters, and deliverables. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Front-loads key information.

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 high number of parameters and options (deliverables, output modes), the description provides essential guidance but lacks explanation of less common parameters and output schema. However, the output schema exists separately. Overall adequate for basic usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by giving example parameters with ranges and explaining the deliverables parameter. However, many parameters (e.g., top_mat, cover_mm, working_space) are not explained beyond schema defaults. The description adds value but does not cover all parameters.

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 it computes a BoQ for a single isolated reinforced concrete pad foundation with optional pedestal, and mentions integration with reinforcement scheduling. The title 'Compute Concrete Pad Foundation BoQ' matches. It distinguishes from sibling tool compute_cantilever_wall as a free-tier alternative.

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 says 'Paid tier only' and mentions the error for unauthenticated users, providing a free-tier alternative. It includes example parameters and a call example, and explains the deliverables parameter. It gives clear context but does not explicitly list when to not use this tool.

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