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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive) and an output schema exists, so the burden on the description is low. The description adds nothing beyond restating that it returns m³ and truck size, so it neither strengthens nor weakens the structured data.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose leads, use case and returns follow. The trailing list_bundles pointer is useful routing rather than padding.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema already explaining return values, the description covers purpose, use case, and output unit adequately for a one-parameter calculator. The only gap is the inaccurate input enumeration.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'type' enum, so baseline would be 3, but the description lists 'home size, rooms, furniture density' as inputs — only home type/rooms loosely map to the enum and 'furniture density' does not exist in the schema at all. This overstates the actual input surface and could mislead an agent into expecting extra parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource+output unit: 'Estimate moving volume (m³) by home type and contents.' An agent knows exactly what it computes, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling calculate_moving_cost_detailed or calculate_shipping_volumetric.

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?

Some implied usage is given: 'Use for moving company quotes.' However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit alternative named other than a vague pointer to list_bundles for related calculators. An agent must infer scope on its own.

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