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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reports the input parameters and output shape, but omits important assumptions (e.g., single-phase vs. three-phase, conductor material, temperature). It does not state that the calculation is read-only or whether it has side effects, though this is typical for a calculation tool. The description adds some value beyond the schema but lacks key context.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and inputs, and the second listing the output structure and a pointer to list_bundles. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

For a calculation tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers inputs and output shape but lacks details on underlying formulas, assumptions (e.g., conductor material, power factor), or typical usage scenarios. The output schema exists but is not described in full; the description gives keys but not units or interpretation. Some gaps remain for an AI agent to use without additional context.

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%, meaning all parameters already have individual descriptions. The description merely summarizes these inputs without adding new meaning or clarifying edge cases (e.g., units for power_w). Therefore, it does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states 'Calculate cable section from power, voltage, distance and max voltage drop,' which is a specific verb+resource. It also lists the return structure, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. The mention of list_bundles indirectly distinguishes it from related calculators, though not from the sibling 'calculate_cable_section' directly.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_cable_section'. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions for use, or when not to use it. The reference to list_bundles is vague and does not constitute clear usage guidelines.

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