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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It enumerates the output fields (dimensions, volume, weight, depth, series, warranty), implying a read-only lookup, but does not disclose potential errors, data formats, or any side effects. It adds some context beyond the schema (fields returned) but leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists the specific attributes, making it efficient and scannable with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description lists the returned characteristics, which covers the main return values. However, it lacks any context about parameter formatting, model validation, or what happens with invalid input, making it minimally complete 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?

The single parameter 'model' is fully described in the schema with an example range (laguna2..laguna9), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. At 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is 3; the description's mention of 'series' and 'warranty' likely refers to output fields, not the input.

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 returns detailed pool specifications including dimensions, volume, weight, depth, series, and warranty, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pool_price or get_accessories. The lack of an explicit verb in the description (relying on the tool name) is minor, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 like search_pools, recommend_pool, or get_pool_price. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions.

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