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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds genuinely new context: the result is a *starting* recommendation, the team confirms the final size on the written quote, and a sizing_reference thread carries the result into submit_quote_request. That caveat about authority is the key thing an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loads the identity and provenance, then bundles the required inputs, the return shape, the authoritative caveat, and the downstream handoff in a compact block. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only mild cost is that inputs, outputs, and caveats are run together without visual separation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief mention of returned inches/mm, fit quality, and explanation is sufficient rather than obligatory. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering the human-confirmation caveat and the sizing_reference handoff, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly and act on the result.

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% and the per-parameter descriptions already explain product, fill_amount, piece_size, format, and bag_size, including the 'ask the customer; don't guess' instruction. The description restates the same field list without adding syntax or edge-case detail, so it sits at the baseline rather than improving on the schema.

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 and resource ('recommend a starting bag size') and pins its provenance to the same sizing engine used by pouch.me/bag-sizing and the quote form, which makes it distinct from the sibling recommend_bag_type (which picks a format, not a size). An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: supply the product, the fill amount, the bag type (explicitly sourced from recommend_bag_type), and piece size for solid pieces. It also names the downstream path ('pass sizing_reference to submit_quote_request'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond noting that roll stock isn't sized.

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