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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the content domains covered (inputs, outputs, assumptions, tables), which is meaningful. However, it does not state whether the output is static text, structured data, or how long the result is, though for an informational tool this is largely acceptable.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the covered aspects without repetition or filler. Every clause adds distinct information.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema describe tool, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: the exact scope of content the tool will return. It does not specify the output format, but the boundaries of the tool are clearly defined.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The 0-params baseline is 4, and the description even adds value by noting the calculator's own inputs will include units, ranges, and defaults.

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 describes the calculator's inputs (with units, ranges, defaults), outputs, assumptions, and tables. The title anchors it to the Scaffolding cost calculator, making it clearly distinct from siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate, enquiry_describe, or enquiry_fields. Usage is only implied: when one needs the calculator's input/output details. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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