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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the full computation model (riser count formula, side-profile area, volume conversion, waste and bag-yield handling) and enumerating what is produced. It discloses behavior beyond the annotations, though it doesn't state explicitly that the result is a deterministic computed report.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: the purpose and the output list come first, followed by the formulas. The formula block is long but earns its place by making the calculation auditable. Minor redundancy between the opening list and the formula narration keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so by listing risers, riser height, treads, landing, cubic yards and bags. Combined with the annotated read-only nature and full parameter descriptions, an agent has what it needs; only explicit unit/format of the response is absent.

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, but the description adds real semantic value by showing how the parameters interrelate: max riser drives the riser count, waste_pct feeds the volume and bag math, and bag_yield_cf converts cubic feet to bags. This clarifies parameter roles beyond the terse schema labels.

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+resource: it computes concrete volume for solid steps, enumerating risers, riser height, treads, top landing, cubic yards and 80 lb bags. This is clearly distinct from siblings like calc_concrete_slab, calc_concrete_footing, or calc_stair_stringer, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives – it never says, for example, to use calc_stair_stringer for stringers or calc_concrete_slab for flat slabs. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the formula. Selection guidance is left entirely to inference.

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