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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the computational basis (Blondel's formula), a mild behavioral detail, but says nothing about validation limits or what the result set contains (though an output schema exists).

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 core capability before the cross-reference. Efficient, though the list_bundles pointer is arguably tangential to invoking this specific tool.

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 (4 well-documented params, rich annotations, an output schema covering returns), so no return-value or safety explanation is needed. The only real gap is sibling disambiguation from calculate_staircase, which the description never addresses.

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% and every parameter carries a unit, default and min/max in the schema, so the description need not re-document them. It names 'dimensions, volume and materials' as outputs, which loosely maps to width_m/height_m/thickness_cm, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Calculate) plus resource (concrete stair dimensions, volume and materials) and names the underlying method (Blondel's formula), which is more informative than a bare title restatement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling calculate_staircase, leaving the agent to guess which to pick.

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 only routing guidance is a pointer to list_bundles for related 'construction' calculators, which is a discovery hint rather than a when-to-use/why-this-over-alternatives statement. No condition or exclusion distinguishes it from calculate_staircase or calculate_brick_count/calculate_concrete_mix.

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