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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial context: deterministic geometric packing, default pallet deck height of 15, error behavior on invalid dimensions, rate limiting with retry semantics, and limitations regarding real-world stacking rules. No contradictions with 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 well-structured into Purpose, Behavior, Returns, Limitations, and Related sections. Every sentence contributes unique information—no tautology or filler. Despite its length, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema present), the description is comprehensive: it covers return envelope fields, error handling, rate limiting, weight capping behavior, and limitations. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to explain every return field, but it still gives a high-level overview of the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying defaults (pallet_deck_height_cm defaults to 15, allow_rotation defaults to true), explaining the effect of max_payload_kg, and noting that missing/non-positive dimensions error naming the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's basic type descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate how many identical boxes fit on a pallet' and enumerates outputs (boxes per layer, layer count, totals, volume utilisation, weight capping). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming ldm_calculator, vehicle_lookup, and container_lookup with their distinct scopes.

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 explicitly states what the tool does not model ('does not model interlocked or mixed-orientation patterns'), when weight capping applies, and how to handle rate limits (back off, retry, or call get_subscribe_link). It also lists related tools, giving clear alternatives.

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