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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only mentions that layout pattern influences the waste factor. It does not disclose output format, rounding behavior, how box counts are derived, whether prices are required for cost output, or any assumptions about waste. This is a meaningful transparency 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 description is one compact sentence that front-loads the core outputs and then enumerates inputs efficiently. Every phrase adds information, and the layout examples are useful without bloating the text.

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?

This is a moderately complex 10-parameter calculator with no output schema, no annotations, and only 30% schema description coverage. The description provides a useful overview but omits important context such as unit conventions, how cost is calculated when only one price type is given, and what the returned estimate contains. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently predict behavior.

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 only 30%, so the description must compensate by grouping and naming parameters. It does cover the main semantic categories: room dimensions, tile dimensions, grout width, layout-driven waste, box size, and prices. However, it does not clarify the difference between price_per_m2 and price_per_box, nor how waste_percent interacts with layout-specific defaults.

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 identifies the resource and outcome clearly: computing tiles, boxes, and cost for a room. It lists the relevant inputs and layout options, making the tool's purpose recognizable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling flooring_calculator, so it loses the top point.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over flooring_calculator, paint_coverage, or other calculators. The description implies use for tiling estimates but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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