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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the core calculation behavior: adding planing allowance at 2.5 mm/face, saw kerf at 2.2 mm, applying WH-2021 Eq. 4-9 shrinkage, and mapping direction to board width/thickness. It does not describe return output or edge cases, but the main behavior is 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose, defaults, and direction mapping are front-loaded. Every sentence 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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description captures the algorithm but does not state the forward/reverse mode flow, the shape of the result, or the optional species/custom shrinkage path. The schema compensates for parameter details, making this adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 82%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by supplying default values for planing and kerf and by explaining the physical interpretation of tangential vs radial. It leaves mode and custom-species behavior to the schema, which already documents them adequately.

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 begins with a precise verb and object: 'convert between finished (planed, kiln-dried) and rough-sawn dimensions'. It distinguishes this from sibling calculators by naming the specific allowances and shrinkage equation, so an agent can tell it apart from tools like board_feet_calculator or wood_shrinkage.

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 provides clear timing context ('before drying and planing') that implies when this sizing conversion is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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