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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the rounding rule (floor to 1 cm below 14 cm, even 2 cm at 14 cm and above), oval-log averaging, the optional +2 cm ovality adjustment, the over-6 m length allowance, and the m3 output. It does not detail how qty affects totals or how diameter_long_cm is handled, but it is substantially transparent.

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 dense but compact, leading with the standard name and then the key behavioral specifics. It contains no filler and every phrase adds information, though a single long sentence with semicolons is slightly harder to parse than a short bulleted structure.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, it states the output format (per log and totals in m3) and enough JAS-specific behavior to make a correct call plausible. It does not quantify the exact length allowance or the full volume formula, but the named official standard plus the explicit rounding rules make it reasonably 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 already documents 80% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning by tying diameter inputs to the rounding and ovality rules and by connecting length_m to the over-6 m allowance. qty remains only implicit in 'totals,' but the schema default covers that gap.

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 the exact standard (JAS), the computation (diameter rounding, oval averaging, +2 cm adjustment, length allowance), and the result (volume per log and totals in m3). It clearly distinguishes this specialized JAS tool from generic siblings like log_volume and hoppus_volume.

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 usage when JAS-standard scaling is needed, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as log_volume, hoppus_volume, or green_log_weight. The 'official' framing gives context, but there are no exclusions or alternative routing conditions.

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