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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the waste-margin logic and that results are total cost plus m²-to-order, which tells the agent what the computation yields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage, inputs, and outputs, with no filler. The trailing list_bundles reference is brief and useful rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no deep explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately. The only gap is the mismatch between the described 'surface m²' input and the schema's length/width parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description names the concept inputs (surface m², price/m², waste %), which broadly maps to the params, but its 'surface m²' phrasing does not match the required length_m/width_m pair in the schema, adding a slight inconsistency rather than extra meaning.

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 action and resource: 'Compute flooring cost including waste margin,' and enumerates what it takes in and returns. It is distinguishable from pure area tools like calculate_floor_area, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with adjacent flooring siblings such as calculate_tile_quantity.

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?

'Use for renovation budget' gives a light context for when it applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. The pointer to list_bundles is a discovery aid for sibling calculators rather than a selection rule, so usage remains implied.

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