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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the calculation but omits any behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions. For a simple computation tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose, and the second adds helpful context about related tools and output. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. However, it lacks depth on the Carrez law context (e.g., which rooms are included/excluded, minimum ceiling height). The tool appears to be part of a broad set, and the description is minimally complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema already describes the 'rooms' parameter well (list of objects with name, area_m2, ceiling_height_m). The description adds the expected output fields, which is helpful but not critical. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description provides marginal added value.

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 calculates Carrez law surface area, a specific French legal measurement. It includes a list of return fields, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many other calculate_ tools, though the niche domain (Carrez law) inherently distinguishes it.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions related calculators via 'list_bundles' but does not offer explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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