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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing the formula, the species-table behavior, the custom S_od + FSP path, and the important clamping behavior above FSP. It does not describe the return value format or any edge-case behavior beyond clamping, but for a read-only calculator the disclosed behavior is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the formula, then directions, then species/custom inputs, then the crucial clamping rule. Every sentence contributes distinct information and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 covers the calculation logic, input modes, and the FSP clamp, which makes the tool usable. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not fully specify what the tool returns — for example, whether it returns a shrinkage percentage, a new dimension in mm, or both — which is a meaningful gap for an agent.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that species are selected from a verified table, custom S_od and FSP can be supplied, and MC is clamped to FSP — all of which clarify how parameters like custom_shrink_od_pct and custom_fsp_pct behave.

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 a specific verb and resource: it computes wood shrinkage between two moisture contents, names the governing formula (WH-2021 Eq. 4-9), and enumerates the three direction modes (tangential, radial, volumetric). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from sibling moisture-related tools like wood_emc or moisture_content.

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 clear operational context — start MC to end MC, directions, species selection or custom coefficients, and the FSP clamp — so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as wood_emc or moisture_content, nor gives any when-not-to-use guidance.

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