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

The annotations already declare this is a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description confirms the operation is a deterministic formula. It adds that tons output is optional/density-dependent, but discloses nothing about units edge cases or rounding behavior beyond what the schema and annotations already carry.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it computes, then the two formulas. Front-loaded output statement, zero filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless-required, deterministic calculator with no output schema, the description adequately supplies both the input relationship and the return values (cu yd plus optional tons). Only minor gaps remain, such as how defaults are applied when inputs are omitted, which is left to the schema.

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 already 100%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description goes further by giving the exact formula (L×W×d÷324) that links the parameters, clarifying units (ft, in) and the relationship between tons_per_cy and the tonnage output. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema's field-level 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?

States a specific computed resource (cubic yards/tons of mulch, gravel, sand or soil) for a specific application (bed or path). This naturally distinguishes it from material-specific siblings like calc_sod, calc_paver, and calc_roofing without needing to name them.

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 scope 'for a bed or path' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any statement about when a sibling calculator is the better choice. Usage is only inferable from the material type.

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