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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or handles errors. For a calculation tool these may be less critical, but the description lacks any behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a helpful reference to related calculators. Every word adds value, and no space is wasted.

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 straightforward calculation tool with a clear output schema mentioned in the description, the context is minimally sufficient. However, the omission of the elevator parameter and lack of usage guidance leave gaps. More detail on parameter constraints or expected output format would improve completeness.

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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the description mentions only volume, distance, and floor, omitting the elevator parameter. This omission could mislead an agent into ignoring a relevant input. The schema itself is descriptive, so baseline 3 is reduced to 2 due to incomplete parameter coverage in the description.

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 estimates detailed moving cost based on volume, distance, and floor, and specifies the return format. The name and inputs are clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like calculate_moving_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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The reference to list_bundles is vague and does not clarify selection criteria. An agent would have difficulty deciding between this and other moving-related calculators.

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