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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists what the tool returns: sheets used, piece positions, utilization, estimated cut length/count, unplaced pieces, and a web_url for visual layout. It also mentions key configuration options (kerf, rotation lock, trim, multiple stock sizes). It does not discuss side effects or limitations, but as a computation/optimization tool, none are expected. The disclosure is adequate for an agent to understand 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key capabilities, followed by a concise list of outputs and a note about the visual URL. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: sheets used, piece positions, utilization, estimated cut length/count, unplaced pieces, and a web_url. It also covers the main input options. For a complex tool with nine parameters, the description plus the fully documented schema provide sufficient information for an agent to call it correctly. It does not detail edge cases or error handling, but those are typically outside the scope of a tool description.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds only light context, such as linking 'rotation lock' to 'grain direction' and 'trim' to 'damaged edges', which marginally enhances understanding. It does not provide new parameter syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already covers. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with additional semantic 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 states the tool optimizes 2D guillotine cutting plans for sheet materials like plywood, MDF, glass, and sheet metal, listing key features (kerf, rotation lock, trim, multiple stock sizes). This verb+resource+scope definition distinguishes it from the sibling linear_cutting_optimizer, which handles 1D cutting. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 establishes the tool's domain explicitly ('2D guillotine cutting plans for plywood, MDF, glass, sheet metal'), making it clear when it applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as pointing to linear_cutting_optimizer for one-dimensional cuts. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer correct usage, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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