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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility. It explains the output types (net, waste-adjusted, purchase quantities) and notes it's an estimate. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or the meaning of 'auditable', leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a necessary caveat. It is efficient and easy to parse, though a bit more structure (e.g., separating inputs from outputs) could slightly improve clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema which reduces the need to detail return values, the description is incomplete given the tool's moderate complexity. Critical information about parameter semantics and operational context is missing, requiring external documentation for full understanding.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and while the description mentions inputs like 'explicit geometry or measurement payload', it does not explain individual parameters (e.g., 'items', 'options', 'request_id', 'payment_ref'). This lack of parameter-level guidance makes it difficult for an agent to correctly populate the fields.

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 clearly states the tool calculates an auditable material takeoff from explicit geometry or supported measurement payloads, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_assemblies or get_assembly, which serve different purposes.

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 provides context that this is a planning estimate, not a guaranteed order, which implies appropriate usage scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, and does not mention any prerequisites.

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