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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the exact computation model (⌈length ÷ spacing⌉ + 1, plus per-corner/per-opening extras, plate = length × plates), letting the agent predict outputs. It does not describe the return structure, but that is a minor gap against 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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and spacing options front-loaded, followed by the formula. The formula uses symbols (⌈⌉) that are slightly dense but carry no wasted prose.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description names the outputs loosely (stud count, plate linear feet) but never specifies the return shape or whether layout vs total studs are both returned. Adequate for a pure calculator with a fully documented schema, but not fully self-contained.

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 each parameter is already documented (including defaults). The description goes beyond the schema by tying parameters together, e.g. corners × extras per corner, openings × extras per opening, and plate linear ft = length × plates, which clarifies how each input feeds the result.

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 verb+resource with full scope: studs at 16/24 in o.c. plus corner/opening extras plus linear feet of top and bottom plate. An agent can distinguish this from calc_drywall, calc_board_foot, or other framing siblings immediately.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's narrow scope (framing a wall), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to a sibling calculator. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so guidance amounts to inference from the description.

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