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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds important behavioral meaning by explaining that positive percentages mean shrinkage and negative percentages mean growth, which is not captured by the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loads the calculation, then adds the essential input constraint and output interpretation. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the output in terms of shrinkage/growth percentages and area change. Combined with rich parameter descriptions and annotations, it contains everything needed to call and interpret this calculation tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by reinforcing consistent marked distances, one-unit measurement, and the shrinkage/growth sign convention.

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 precise verb and resource: it calculates fabric shrinkage or growth from before/after wash measurements. It specifies length along the selvedge, width across the fabric, and area change, which clearly separates it from the sibling planning tool.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: use the same marked distances before and after and keep all four measurements in one unit. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or compare against plan_fabric_length, so it is not a full 5.

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