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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well: it explains that presets are editable, that both volume and weight limits are considered, and that it returns the binding limit and containers needed. It doesn't discuss rounding/validation edge cases, but for a calculator this is adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the central question, and every sentence adds value: the presets, editability, and return values are all essential. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 rich schema and detailed output description, the definition is complete for practical use. It does not explicitly say that carton dimensions or volume must accompany kg_per_piece, but the schema supplies those fields and their descriptions, so an agent can infer the required inputs.

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 high at 89%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that the container presets are editable and that planned_qty drives the 'containers needed' output. This goes beyond simply restating field names.

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 opens with a specific outcome: determining how many uniform cartons fit in a shipping container before cube-out or weigh-out. It clearly names the resource and computation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like cbm_shipment or stowage_factor.

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 use case is clear: container loading/cube-out vs weigh-out planning for uniform cartons. It gives enough context for an agent to recognize when this tool applies, though it does not name alternatives or state exclusions.

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