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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds only 'live', with no mention of units handling, geometric assumptions (rectangular section with top/bottom dimensions implies sloped sides), or what a result contains.

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 no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a six-parameter computational tool.

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?

Six required parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema means the description should at minimum state what the calculation returns and what units/constraints apply. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict results or validate inputs.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the six required numeric parameters, yet it mentions none. Only the parameter names' '_m' suffix implies metres, and nothing explains the relationship between top vs bottom dimensions or the meaning of freeboard.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('Abyar rectangular pond geometry calculation'), which separates it from spec/listing siblings like get_calculator_spec or list_calculators. However, 'Run live ... calculation' does not say what is actually computed (volume, side slope, liner area?), so the agent knows the domain but not the outcome.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus run_calculator, design_project, or explain_design. The word 'live' hints at execution over documentation, but no explicit condition or exclusion is stated.

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