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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions input units (cm) and output (L and gallons), but it incorrectly implies a shape parameter (rectangular/cylindrical/bow-front) that is not in the schema. It also fails to explain the 'substrate_cm' parameter's effect on volume, causing confusion.

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 with two sentences, beginning with the core purpose. The reference to 'list_bundles' adds slight overhead but is helpful. Overall, it is structured well and front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of 4 parameters (including substrate) and an output schema, the description should cover how substrate affects calculation and clarify the shape ambiguity. It fails to address these, leaving gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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%. The description provides some meaning for length, width, height (L×W×H in cm) but introduces a non-existent shape attribute and omits explanation of 'substrate_cm'. This mismatch reduces the utility of the description for parameter understanding.

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 computes aquarium water volume in L and US gallons for fishkeeping, dosing, and stocking decisions. The verb 'compute' and resource are specific, and it points to a sibling tool for related calculators, distinguishing its focus.

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 mentions use cases (fishkeeping, dosing, stocking) and references 'list_bundles' for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other volume calculators like 'calculate_volume' or 'calculate_pool_volume', leaving some ambiguity.

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