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

With readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds meaningful behavior: it anchors to the PackIndex RSC benchmark, returns a low/mid/high band, an optional order total, a next-quarter projection, and 'the sources to cite'. These are return-behavior details the annotations don't provide.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action (price a box) and packs the scope and return shape efficiently. Every clause carries information; only mild density cost given no line breaks.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does (low/mid/high band, optional order total, projection, cited sources). The main gap is unstated region/currency semantics, which are only partly recoverable from the schema.

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 low at 22%, so the description does real work: it enumerates flute values (E, B, C, F, double-wall), states dimensions are internal, maps 'order total' to quantity, and 'next-quarter projection' to horizon. It leaves region and currency unexplained, so it compensates well but not fully.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it prices a corrugated RSC box (FEFCO 0201) from dimensions and flute, anchored to the PackIndex RSC benchmark. It names the distinguishing scope details (RSC/FEFCO 0201, internal dimensions, low/mid/high band) that separate it from generic siblings like get_prices or cost_packaging_spec.

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 implies when it applies (you have internal box dimensions and a flute type and want a benchmarked estimate), but it never states when-not to use it or names an alternative such as cost_packaging_spec, get_prices, or compare_regions. Usage is only inferable from the narrow scope.

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