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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the core calculation formulas, transfer-efficiency ranges, and the optional extra for 3D surfaces. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., litres, cost, or both), how conflicting mode inputs are resolved, or other edge-case behavior.

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 compact: a short domain statement followed by the technical formulas and the optional-surface modifier. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains little waste, though the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than a full actionable sentence.

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 an 8-parameter calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main formulas and mode distinction. It is not fully complete because it omits output units, the purpose of price_per_l, and how the tool behaves when both theoretical and data-sheet coverage inputs are supplied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it groups parameters into a theoretical mode and a data-sheet mode and supplies typical transfer-efficiency values. It could be stronger by explaining the role of price_per_l and required mode combinations, but it clearly adds value.

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 identifies the resource as 'wood finishing paint quantity' and gives the calculation route, so an agent can tell this is a paint-coverage calculator. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate' and does not compare itself to sibling calculators, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 context through the formula and the 'or a data-sheet coverage' alternative, giving two calculation modes. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or when to prefer one mode over the other, so guidance is only implicit.

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