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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'calculator with options.' It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the return value looks like, or whether any side effects (e.g., saving quotes) occur. The absence of any behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's execution characteristics.

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 concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact list of model types. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Minor redundancy ('Расчёт стоимости' and 'Калькулятор') exists, but it is not wasteful enough to lower the score further.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain how the parameters interact (e.g., whether for_pool overrides width/length), what the calculator returns, or any required inputs. The agent is left with limited guidance on how to construct a valid request or interpret 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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds a Russian-language mapping for the model enum (single, double, width) which slightly enhances clarity, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how options interact or constraints. Basline 3 is appropriate.

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 the cost of a sliding terrace/pavilion for a pool, which is specific and distinct from siblings like get_pool_price or calculate_total. It also lists the three model types, providing immediate clarity on scope.

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 implies it is meant for terrace pricing calculations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites like pool model or dimensions, so the usage context is only implied.

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