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

States return unit (input-units cubed) which adds value beyond annotations (none provided). However, it does not describe behavior for invalid shape/parameter combinations, required parameter dependencies per shape, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries more burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 sentences and a suggestion to see bundles. All sentences are informative without wasted words. Key information is front-loaded. Highly concise.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are documented. However, given the tool's complexity (multiple shapes with different parameter needs), the description does not specify parameter dependencies per shape. With many siblings, it could more clearly distinguish its scope (volume only). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal new meaning beyond 'Inputs: shape + dimensions', which repeats the schema. Does not explain which parameters apply to which shapes or any constraints beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it computes volume for common 3D shapes and lists examples. The mention of 'See list_bundles' hints at related tools but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like calculate_cone, which may also compute volume. Purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 use cases (geometry, packaging, construction) and refers to related calculators via list_bundles. Does not specify when not to use this tool versus alternatives, nor clarify that this tool is intended for volume-only calculations while others might handle other aspects.

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