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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the inputs and return values, but since an output schema exists that information is largely redundant rather than new behavioral insight.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the computation and its outputs before the usage hint. The trailing pointer to list_bundles is mildly promotional but short enough not to bloat the definition.

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 two-parameter pure calculator with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and returns adequately. It stops short of clarifying behavior at the run_m boundary or how it differs from the other slope-related tools.

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% (rise_m and run_m are both documented with units), so the baseline is 3. The description's "Inputs: rise, run" restates the schema without adding units, ranges, or edge-case handling such as the run_m minimum of 0.01.

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?

States a specific verb (compute) and resource (slope) and enumerates the three output forms (percentage, degrees, ratio), which is clear. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings such as calculate_drain_slope or calculate_staircase, so an agent must still guess which slope-family tool applies.

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 ramps, roofs, or terrain analysis" gives implied usage contexts, which is better than nothing. However, there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for overlapping cases like drain slope, so the agent gets context but not routing logic.

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