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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a calculation (implying read-only, deterministic behavior) and that results match a specific external guide, but it does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, or output format.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds useful provenance without padding.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, fully documented schema), and the description states what is computed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return structure or behavioral guarantees, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (frame_size enum and include_corners boolean). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Calculate') and two concrete resources ('portal frame block requirements' and 'Echo Shard budget') for a named gateway. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_sift_portal_coordinates (coordinates) and diagnose_sift_ignition (diagnosis).

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives. 'Matches thesiftguide.com bill of materials' adds context about the source but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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