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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's remaining behavioral contribution ("Returns volume and areas") is largely redundant with the existing output schema, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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 formula and output, then usage, then inputs, then a pointer to a sibling bundle. No filler, though the "Returns volume and areas" line duplicates the output schema and could be dropped.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition covers purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately for a two-parameter pure computation. The one notable omission is units (metric vs imperial), which matters for a physical volume calculator.

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's "Inputs: radius, height" restates the two properties and only marginally enriches them by tying them to the formula symbols; no unit, range, or format detail is added beyond the schema's minimum:0 constraints.

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 the exact operation and outputs with explicit formulas (V=πr²h, A=2πr(r+h)), naming the resource (cylinder) precisely. This makes it trivially distinguishable from geometric siblings like calculate_cone, calculate_sphere, and 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?

"Use for tanks, pipes, or containers" gives concrete usage context, and it points to list_bundles for related math calculators. However, it never says when to prefer this over calculate_cone/calculate_sphere/calculate_volume, nor any exclusions or edge-case handling (e.g., what units).

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