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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns volume and truck size recommendations, implying read-only calculation. But it does not mention any constraints, prerequisites, or side effects, leaving the behavioral profile incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and unit. Every phrase adds value: the use case, inputs (with caveat), output summary, and pointer to related tools. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details aren't strictly required. The description provides helpful context by mentioning output contents (m³ and truck size). However, it introduces inputs not in the schema, which undermines completeness for an agent mapping inputs to schema.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with one enum parameter 'type'. The description adds 'home size, rooms, furniture density' as inputs, but these are not part of the schema, creating a mismatch. This could mislead an agent about the available inputs.

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 moving volume in m³ for moving company quotes. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'moving volume' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_moving_cost_detailed', which could cause some ambiguity.

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 specifies using the tool for moving company quotes, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives like other volume calculators, leaving usage boundaries implicit.

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