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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: calculation of counts/prices, provision of coordination tips and persona_hints, carry_in check for large shelves, the need to advise users when risk=warning/critical, and the requirement to present affiliate_url. This is rich behavioral disclosure, though it could mention error handling or what happens when no matches are found.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with trigger examples, and each clause adds value. It is dense but structured logically, covering triggers, main calculation, additional features, and required actions. Slightly more compact would be ideal, but it remains efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It lists total count/price, coordination tips, persona_hints, carry_in, risk levels, and affiliate_url, which gives a good picture of the output. It does not describe the exact format/structure of the response, but given the tool's complexity, the description is adequately complete.

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 already have descriptions. The tool description adds context about using shelf internal dimensions and installation location, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for schema-heavy parameter documentation.

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's purpose: it calculates the number of storage boxes that fit in a shelf from internal dimensions, computes total count/price, and provides coordination tips and persona recommendations. It also gives explicit trigger examples like 'What box fits this shelf?' which makes it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to call the tool via example queries ('「この棚に合うボックスは？」「カラーボックスの整理方法」'), and further specifies conditional usage for large shelves with carry_in and risk warnings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' level.

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