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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one behavioral fact beyond the annotations — that a size-range search is bundled into the response — but says nothing about what the returned numbers look like or the mutual dependence of wall_width and furniture_width.

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, front-loaded with the primary question ('what size art fits a wall and how high to hang it') followed by the derived outputs and the ancillary search. Every clause maps to a real capability, though the output list is slightly packed.

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 name the returns — and it does (width, hanging height, gap, gallery spacing, matching works). For a 3-param, zero-required calculator with full schema documentation, that is nearly complete; it only omits guidance on supplying one of the two width inputs.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions for unit, wall_width and furniture_width, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes the wall-vs-furniture distinction without adding format or selection rules, matching the baseline 3 for full schema 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 names the concrete outputs (art width for furniture or wall, hanging height, gap above furniture, gallery wall spacing) and adds a ready size-range search, which clearly separates it from siblings like search_art or get_fair_art_price. It stops short of a crisp verb-first statement, but the resource and computed results are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: the wall/furniture context tells an agent this is a sizing calculation, and no alternatives are named for exclusion. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_art or which of wall_width vs furniture_width to supply, so it remains minimum viable.

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