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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the calculation formula and the definition of a board foot, which meaningfully explains behavior beyond annotations. It does not detail output rounding, but for a simple calculator this is minor.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences with no filler. The first states the purpose, the second provides the formula and unit definition. Every word serves a purpose.

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 straightforward calculator with fully documented parameters and comprehensive annotations, this description is complete. It provides the formula, definition, and context. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the computed result is self-explanatory.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying parameters together in the formula and defining a board foot, reinforcing the role of thickness, width, length, and qty. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute board feet for lumber.' It immediately states the tool's purpose and is clearly distinct from sibling calculators like area or length converters. The inclusion of the formula further cements the purpose.

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 clear context that this tool is for lumber board foot calculations. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the specialized nature makes the intended use evident. Sibling tools do not overlap with this function, so no exclusions are needed.

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