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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose output behavior (returns both m3 and ft3), input unit conventions, and which diameters each formula requires. It doesn't mention defaults or behavior on invalid/missing diameters, but those are minor for a pure calculator with schema-provided defaults.

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?

One dense sentence delivers formula options, parameter implications, unit systems, and return units with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema calculator, the description covers the key call decisions: method selection, required diameters per method, unit systems, and return values. Minor omissions are explicit defaults and exact output field names, but the schema supplies the defaults and the description supplies the output nature.

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?

The description maps the method enum to the relevant diameter parameters (mid only, both ends, all three) and translates the unit enum into concrete dimensions, which the schema only partially covers. It compensates well for the 67% schema description coverage, though the length parameter remains undocumented in both places.

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 the resource (a log) and operation (computing cubic volume), and names the specific formulas (Huber, Smalian, Newton), which distinguishes it from sibling log-volume scales like hoppus_volume and jas_log_scale. It also specifies unit systems and return units, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool computes.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose log_volume over sibling log-scale tools such as hoppus_volume or jas_log_scale, nor any statement about when not to use it. The 'most accurate' note on Newton is internal method-selection guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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