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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description adds that the answer comes in both unit systems and that handing is included by default, which is modest value beyond the structured fields. It does not discuss output format, limits, or how the chart differs behaviorally from a computed result.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, and each clause maps to a concrete chart section rather than filler. It is somewhat run-on and jargon-heavy, but it is appropriately sized for a chart tool with several output sections.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description's job is mainly to convey what the chart contains, which it does thoroughly. The one notable gap is routing guidance against close siblings like trim_corner. Otherwise an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents angles, detail, system, and handing with defaults and enums. The description reinforces the default chart range and mentions handing, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (the mitre saw chart for trim corners) and enumerates what it contains: mitre per piece, outside-corner reading, gap on 18 mm and 3/4 in trim, crown laid flat, and the handing table. An agent can tell this is a reference/chart tool rather than a single-corner calculator. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as trim_corner or calculate, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Any corners on request' suggests the angles parameter drives a custom chart, and the tool is clearly for trim mitre reference. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus trim_corner, calculate, or get_calculator, and no exclusions. This is minimum viable guidance.

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