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

Read-only/open-world annotations already cover safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail by giving the exact formulas for required flow, actual turnover, and filter max flow. It still omits edge-case behavior such as how the schema's '0 to skip' inputs are handled and what exact output shape is returned.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the result set is front-loaded, followed by compact formulas. The first sentence is dense but still readable.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description does a good job naming the three outputs and explaining the formulas behind them. It is slightly incomplete on return structure and zero/skip handling, but the schema covers most input semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings and defaults are already well documented. The description restates variables inside formulas but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It enumerates the three results clearly: required pump flow, actual turnover, and filter adequacy. The scope is specific and distinguishable from pool-volume or chemistry siblings, though it does not use an explicit verb or name alternatives.

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 implies when it is useful, such as targeting a turnover time, using a flow-meter reading, or checking filter size. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not route the agent to related pool calculators.

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