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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavior. It discloses that the tool computes and returns slope% and angle°, implying a non-destructive read-only operation. No contradictions or hidden side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple calculator.

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 concise sentences: function, use cases, inputs/outputs, and related tools. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema (context note), the description sufficiently covers return values and use cases. It omits potential edge cases (e.g., zero run) but the schema enforces minimum run. Overall complete for a simple calculation tool.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description only restates 'Inputs: rise, run' and mentions output fields, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 computes slope as percentage, angle in degrees, and ratio, with specific use cases (ramps, roofs, terrain). It effectively distinguishes itself from the many sibling calculate_* tools by focusing on slope.

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?

Provides context for when to use (ramps, roofs, terrain) and references related 'construction' calculators via list_bundles. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons, but the use-case guidance is clear.

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