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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core computation, the benchmark context, and a useful behavioral expectation ('Doyle underestimates small logs, so overrun is usually positive'). However, it does not explain edge cases, output format, or how the benchmark comparison is presented, so transparency is only partial.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary formula and benchmark scope, then adds the secondary overrun calculation and a compact interpretive note. Every clause contributes either a formula, a benchmark context, or a useful behavioral expectation.

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 simple two-required-parameter calculator with complete schema coverage, the essential formulas are present. But with no output schema, the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a fraction, percentage, or benchmark classification), nor does it resolve the ambiguity of the FAO/EU/SE-Asia reference ranges. It is adequate for basic invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by relating the required parameters through the recovery-rate formula and by defining how actual_bf and log_rule_bf combine in the overrun calculation. The Doyle note also gives qualitative interpretive context for those optional parameters.

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 tool as a sawmill recovery-rate calculator with an explicit formula: sawn volume out / roundwood volume in. It also describes the secondary overrun/underrun calculation. However, it never names or differentiates from sibling tools such as board_feet_calculator or log_volume, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like log_volume or board_feet_calculator. It also does not state when the optional actual_bf/log_rule_bf pair should or should not be supplied, beyond the schema's 'optional' label. The intended use case is implied by the formula, but not stated.

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