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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields, which is useful context, but this may overlap with the output schema and does not disclose formula assumptions or limitations.

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 main action, followed by return values. The list_bundles pointer is somewhat unnecessary for invoking this specific tool but does not bloat the definition significantly.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and the schema and output schema are rich. However, the description fails to differentiate this from the sibling calculate_cable_section and omits any note on electrical assumptions, which is a meaningful gap for selecting the correct calculator.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with units and defaults. The description lists the same inputs without adding syntax, constraints, or electrical assumptions beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: calculate cable section, and lists the main inputs. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling calculate_cable_section, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives. The reference to list_bundles is vague and does not help select between this and other calculators.

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