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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the calculation pipeline and the outputs: per-stage loss and required roundwood volume. Although it does not explicitly say the operation is side-effect-free, the verbs 'multiplies', 'shows', and 'computes' make the pure-calculation nature clear.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the main purpose and packs the calculation behavior, output types, and target-volume use case into one clause. There are no wasted words and no duplication of schema content.

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 two-parameter calculator whose schema is fully described, this is nearly complete: the agent knows the process order, what the tool computes, and the output concepts. The only notable gap is that the description does not state what happens when target_output_m3 is omitted, leaving the forward-only mode to the schema's 'reverse mode' hint.

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 schema already documents yield_pct, label, and target_output_m3 at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to restate them. It adds conceptual color by linking stages to the sawing->drying->machining->finishing chain, but it does not materially change how the parameters should be filled in.

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 object: 'cumulative yield through a wood production chain' and names the exact calculation behavior (multiplying stage yields, per-stage loss, roundwood volume for a target). This is clearly distinct from the sibling calculator tools, which handle single measurements or material estimates.

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?

It states the context of a multi-stage wood production chain, which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it never says when not to use it or points to a sibling alternative such as sawmill_recovery or rough_sizing, so the agent has to infer the boundary.

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