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 a genuine behavioral detail — that the answer includes a rule of thumb and links to a sources page — but omits the size of the fixed 'gap above' and the units of the returned height/width, which materially affect interpreting results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary outcome and followed by a note on what the answer contains. The main clause is a verbless fragment, which is slightly awkward, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

A three-parameter calculation tool with full schema documentation and no output schema; the description tells the agent the answer includes height, width and a source link. It stops short of stating output units and the assumed clearance above the tree, which an agent would need to interpret the result correctly.

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%, with units, defaults and edge cases (0 for no topper, 0 when stand is included in listed height) documented per parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions topper and stand conceptually but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the specific resource and outputs: the tallest tree that fits under a given ceiling, accounting for topper and stand, plus the resulting width. It is a calculator rather than an action verb, but the computation is unambiguous. Sibling tools all target different objects (rugs, chandeliers, curtains), so differentiation is largely inherent in the domain.

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: this is the tool for sizing a tree to a ceiling. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites or edge cases. Given the narrow, self-evident scope and the unrelated sibling set, the implied guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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