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

Annotations already declare the safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds the volume formula and states that areas are returned, which is useful but not deep behavioral context such as constraints, edge cases, or rounding behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and formula, and is appropriately short. It has minor redundancy in restating that volume and areas are returned, and the list_bundles pointer is not essential.

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?

For a simple two-parameter geometry calculator with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description is essentially complete. It covers the purpose, inputs, and outputs without needing to explain return formatting or security-sensitive behavior.

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 both parameters. The description only restates 'Inputs: radius, height' without adding units, constraints, or interpretation beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — computing cone volume and lateral/total surface area — and even includes the volume formula. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_sphere, calculate_cylinder, or calculate_volume.

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?

It says 'Use for geometry or container design,' which gives broad context but does not specify when to choose this over calculate_volume, calculate_sphere, or calculate_cylinder. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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