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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation logic and the two special modes (edge-glued panels, face lamination) but does not state whether the tool is read-only or mention any side effects. As a calculator, it is implicitly non-destructive, but the description does not explicitly confirm this, leaving a moderate gap.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core formula and key presets; the second lists the two additional computation modes. It is efficiently structured and immediately informative.

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 (8 parameters, 2 nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main calculation and alternatives but omits any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., mass, volume, cost) or how the output is structured. Since density_gcm3 and price_per_kg suggest optional cost/volume outputs, this is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether this tool fits a task.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the overall formula and providing preset spread values (e.g., PVAc D3 175) that clarify the spread_gsm parameter. It also explains how the nested objects (edge_panel, face_lam) serve as alternative ways to compute bond area, which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 wood adhesive quantity using a specific formula (bond area x spread x faces x waste allowance) and also handles edge-glued panels and face lamination. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from the many other woodworking calculators, none of which target glue consumption.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (any wood adhesive quantity calculation) and gives presets for common adhesives, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since no sibling tool is glue-specific, the context is sufficient.

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