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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that pattern repeat and openings are incorporated into the calculation and that roll dimensions can come from presets or custom values, which is useful beyond the tool name.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the roll configuration guidance directly follows.

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?

The description is adequate for a moderately complex calculator with 7 parameters and no output schema. It explains what inputs matter and the main calculation considerations, though it could explicitly mention rounding or how the final roll count is expressed.

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 57%, so the description adds meaningful value by grouping parameters into preset rolls vs custom dimensions and by naming the factors (pattern repeat, openings) that correspond to otherwise plain numeric fields. It does not fully describe every parameter, but supplements the schema well.

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 states the exact purpose: computing wallpaper rolls needed for a wall. It names the key accounting factors (pattern repeat, openings) and the roll-type options, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calculators.

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 gives clear context: use when estimating wallpaper rolls for a wall, and explains how to configure rolls via preset or custom dimensions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives/exclusions, but the domain is unambiguous against the sibling list.

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