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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. The description only states what the tool calculates, omitting any behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or what the output format is. Given the absence of annotations, this is insufficient.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second directs users to related calculators. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or information.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The parameters are well-documented in the schema. However, for a specialized calculation tool, some additional context about prerequisites or typical use cases would improve completeness, but the reference to 'list_bundles' provides some contextual guidance.

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%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool calculates hyperfocal distance and near/far sharp limits for a lens and aperture. It uses specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related 'calculate_depth_of_field' sibling tool, which may cause confusion.

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 description hints at the domain by referencing 'photographie' calculators and suggests using 'list_bundles' for related tools. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_depth_of_field', nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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