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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'miter angles three ways' and gives one behavioral detail: crown mode returns miter + bevel. It does not describe the output format, the units used, or how invalid mode/parameter combinations are handled. For a mode-based calculator with no output schema, this is an important 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 entire description is one efficiently structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Miter angles three ways') and then gives compact, non-redundant parentheticals for each mode. No filler, no repetition of the schema enum values, and every clause contributes to the meaning.

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 three-mode calculator with 100% schema coverage, the description leaves two important gaps: it never states that only the parameter relevant to the selected mode should be supplied (an agent could pass sides along with corner_angle_deg), and it does not describe what the tool returns. These are noteworthy omissions for a tool that relies on mode-specific parameters, so the description 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mode references ('crown mode... spring angle') mirror the schema's own parameter descriptions and do not add new syntax, units, or format details. It helps pair modes with parameters, but that information is already present in the schema, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 that the tool computes miter angles and enumerates three distinct modes (corner, sides, crown) with brief scenario explanations. This goes beyond the name and distinguishes it from the many other calculators in the sibling list, though the verb 'Miter' is a shorthand for 'calculates miter angles' rather than a fully explicit phrasing.

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?

Each mode comes with a situational cue (corner angle between two pieces, regular polygon with N sides, crown molding at a spring angle), which helps an agent select the right mode for a request. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling is closely related, the lack of explicit exclusions is not critical but still leaves the when-to-use implied rather than stated.

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