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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is rule-based and deterministic, matching the live calculator, and it enumerates what the caller receives (capacity, weight guidance, price range, calculator link).

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 tight sentences: the first states purpose and methodology, the second front-loads the return contents. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields. Nothing critical is missing for invocation, though it does not say whether the recommendation is absolute or whether alternatives are ever returned.

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 all three used inputs (job type, waste type, scale) are enumerated in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming them. It also omits mention of the optional `placement` parameter, which the schema notes never affects size. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Recommends a skip size") plus the exact inputs it derives from, and clarifies the authority behind the recommendation ("same rules as the Rent-a-Skip skip size calculator"). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_skip_prices, which it partially overlaps with by returning a price range.

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 when it is useful — sizing a job from job type, waste type and scale — but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool. An agent can infer the use case but must reason about routing itself.

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