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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a pure deterministic calculation with no side effects, nor does it describe the return format, precision, or constraints on the input.

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 phrase with zero waste. It communicates the core operation immediately and does not bury it in unnecessary text.

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 one-parameter pure math tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it tells the agent what is computed. However, it does not clarify that the side parameter should be numeric or describe the returned value, leaving gaps that a fuller description could close.

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 input schema has one parameter with a full description ('Side to process'), so the baseline is 3. The description implicitly clarifies that 'side' means the edge length of a cube, adding slight meaning beyond the vague schema text, but it does not add format or constraint details.

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 states a specific resource and what is computed about it: the surface area of a cube. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like cube-volume and cube-diagonal by naming the exact geometric property, but it does not explicitly compare itself to those alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as cube-volume or cube-diagonal. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and purpose statement.

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