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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so this is known to be a safe, deterministic pure computation. The description adds nothing beyond that and even restates the return keys, which the output schema already carries; no assumptions, limits, or edge-case behavior (e.g. zero-area rooms, unit expectations) are disclosed.

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 action and outputs, with no filler. The trailing pointer to list_bundles is marginally useful routing rather than essential content, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 a simple single-parameter pure calculation, and with a dedicated output schema present there is no need to explain return values. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, though it leaves the overlap with sibling area/Carrez calculators unresolved.

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% for the single 'rooms' array parameter, and the schema already defines items with required length_m/width_m and minimum 0. The phrase 'from a list of rooms' adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 and two named outputs (total floor area, Carrez habitable area) computed from a room list, which is concrete and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the neighboring calculate_surface_carrez or calculate_area tools, so an agent has no explicit signal on which of these overlapping area calculators 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?

Usage is implied by 'from a list of rooms' (use when you have per-room length/width), and it routes the agent to list_bundles for related construction calculators. There is no statement of when this is preferable to calculate_surface_carrez or calculate_area, and no exclusion criteria.

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