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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that the result includes the applicable formula and cubic-unit conversion, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about precision, rounding, or supported unit mixing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, the resource, and the two notable output behaviors; no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety and idempotency profile. What remains unstated is edge behavior such as handling of the shape-conditional required fields, but that is largely encoded in the oneOf 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the unit enum and the 'radius, not diameter' note. The description only reinforces the shape list and unit handling, adding little beyond the structured fields; 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?

States a specific verb (computes volume) and enumerates the supported solids plus the returned formula and unit conversions, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the adjacent volume-adjacent sibling mass_volume_convert, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance about when to pick this over mass_volume_convert or square_footage_calculator, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the mention of shapes and cubic units.

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