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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavior is the return shape, which duplicates the output schema, and it says nothing about validation limits (e.g. the 10cm minimum) or edge-case behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and method front-loaded before the cross-reference. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter deterministic calculator with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is essentially sufficient. Listing the return fields is mild redundancy against the output schema, and the tool's fit relative to calculate_concrete_stairs remains unstated.

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% for the single parameter (total_height_cm with a documented minimum of 10), so the schema does the work. The description adds no units, format, or range detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (calculate) and resource (staircase dimensions) and names the method (Blondel formula), which meaningfully distinguishes it from generic siblings like calculate_concrete_stairs. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that near-neighbor, so an agent still has to infer which staircase 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?

The only routing hint is 'See list_bundles for related construction calculators,' which points at discovery rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right choice. There is no when-not guidance or comparison against calculate_concrete_stairs.

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