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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions inputs and outputs but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The description adds some value but could be more explicit about the nature of the operation.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and context, the second lists inputs, outputs, and a reference to related tools. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity of the tool (simple calculation) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is fairly complete. It explains inputs, outputs, and even references related tools. A small improvement would be to mention the output format explicitly, but it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds value by summarizing inputs in natural language ('surface m², product price/m², waste %') and explaining the output. This provides additional context 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 the verb 'Compute' and specifies the resource 'flooring cost including waste margin'. It distinguishes this tool from many sibling calculation tools by naming the specific domain (carpet flooring) and referencing a related bundle for similar calculators.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use for renovation budget'. It also directs users to 'list_bundles' for related calculators, implicitly suggesting alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide prerequisites.

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