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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states returns of ingredient weights but mentions a 'mix ratio' input not in the schema, creating confusion. It does not clarify that the tool is non-destructive or read-only, which is a gap for a calculation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the mention of an undefined 'mix ratio' parameter adds unnecessary noise and inconsistency, slightly harming conciseness.

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 description covers the main purpose, return type, and references a standard. Given an output schema exists, return values are likely defined. However, the 'mix ratio' ambiguity and lack of details about default or fixed ratio leave the description incomplete.

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?

The description adds a 'mix ratio' input that does not exist in the schema, misleading agents. Schema coverage is 100% for volume_m3, so the description offers no added semantics for that parameter and introduces incorrect information.

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 that the tool computes cement, sand, gravel, and water for a concrete volume, referencing the NF DTU 21 standard. It also directs users to list_bundles for related calculators, which helps differentiate it. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other concrete-related calculators like calculate_concrete_stairs.

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 says 'Use for construction projects' and points to list_bundles for related calculators, providing some context. But it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools for related tasks.

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