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

The description discloses the 10% pattern matching inclusion and the return format, adding context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not specify assumptions (e.g., standard fabric width), whether the calculation is approximate, or other behavioral details that might affect usage.

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 two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the key details without redundancy.

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 tool with 2 enum parameters and an output schema (implied by the description), the description covers the purpose, key inclusion (10%), output fields, and links to related tools. It could mention assumptions or limitations (e.g., fabric width) but is largely complete for a simple calculation.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters 'garment' and 'size' beyond what the enum names imply. While the property names and enums are self-documenting, the description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but does not add any semantic value.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates fabric needed for a garment in meters, includes a 10% pattern matching buffer, and specifies the return format. This is a specific verb-resource pair with unique details that distinguish it from siblings like 'calculate_fabric_needed'.

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?

While the description implicitly restricts usage to garment calculations and points to list_bundles for related textile calculators, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_curtain_fabric'. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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