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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the return payload and a concrete mix ratio (40/30/30), which is genuine domain context, but most of that overlaps the existing output schema and it omits anything about units handling or bag-size assumptions.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded first, then inputs, then outputs, with no filler. Slightly dense for a tool this simple, but nothing is padded.

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 an output schema and full annotations present, the description needs only to justify selection and clarify inputs. It does the former adequately but leaves the depth-unit question unresolved, which is the one thing an agent must get right to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description actively misleads: it lists inputs as 'length, width, depth (m)' while the schema defines depth_cm in centimeters with a 10-100 range and a default of 30. An agent reading only the description could pass depth in meters.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Compute soil volume needed to fill a raised garden bed.' That cleanly separates it from arithmetic siblings like calculate_volume. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar calculate_garden_soil or calculate_compost_volume in the sibling list.

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?

'Use for gardening setup' is a broad contextual hint rather than an actionable when-to-use rule, and there is no when-NOT-to-use or explicit alternative (e.g. calculate_garden_soil). Pointing at list_bundles for related 'jardinage' calculators is a weak substitute for routing guidance.

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