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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does so by disclosing both quantity conversion and price translation behavior plus the key MBF conversion factor. It does not describe output rounding or return shape, but there is no destructive or mutating behavior to warn about.

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?

A single sentence packs the action, unit list, price-normalization behavior, and conversion factor with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core conversion scope, supported units, price outputs, and a key factor. It doesn't spell out output structure or the interaction of qty and price, but those are partially documented in the schema and are not blocking for correct invocation.

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping cryptic enum values (hft3, hm3, ht) to full unit names and by clarifying that price is converted to both $/m3 and $/MBF, which gives meaning to the price and price_per 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 names a specific verb ('Convert... and translate'), the exact resource (timber quantities and prices), and enumerates every supported unit. It also includes a concrete conversion factor, so an agent can differentiate this converter from dimension-based siblings like board_feet_calculator or hoppus_volume without opening the schema.

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 tool's use case is clearly stated: when timber quantities need unit conversion or a price must be normalized to $/m3 and $/MBF. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the numeric-conversion context is unambiguous among the sibling calculators.

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