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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions optional quantity and value calculations, but does not disclose unit handling defaults beyond the schema's 'unit' parameter, nor any limitations (e.g., assumes circular cross-section, no bark deduction). The description adds some value but is not thorough for a calculation tool with no 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 sentence that is informative and front-loaded with the calculation method. It covers multiple outputs and options efficiently, though it could be slightly more structured with a list of outputs for readability.

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 no output schema, the description must explain return values, which it does (lists Hoppus volume, true volume, tons, board-feet approximation). However, it does not mention what 'true volume' means or how the board-feet approximation is derived, and it omits details about unit conversion defaults. For a domain-specific tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 80%, and the description adds meaning by explaining that 'circumference' is at mid-length and that volume is computed via (C/4)^2 x L. It also clarifies the output units (Hoppus ft3/m3) and optional quantity/value, which helps the agent understand parameter relationships beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Hoppus volume of round logs') and includes the formula, distinguishing it from siblings like 'log_volume' and 'jas_log_scale' by naming the exact method. It clearly identifies the tool's unique calculation approach.

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 implies when to use this tool (for Hoppus/quarter-girth calculations) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling list includes other log volume calculators, explicit routing would be beneficial.

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