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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the ~0.75 charcoal-per-wood ratio, that power_draw only applies to the electric furnace, that fits_one_fill=false implies a refill is needed, and that numbers assume vanilla server speeds. It does not discuss rounding, units, or how the count multiplier interacts with the ore inputs.

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 lead sentence names the computed quantities up front, then the second sentence enumerates the payload fields compactly via backticks. Every clause carries information; only minor redundancy exists between the title-style opening and the field list.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so for nearly every field (time/seconds, outputs, wood_burned, charcoal_made, power_draw, fits_one_fill, not_smeltable_here). Remaining gaps are units, rounding, and interaction between the count multiplier and ore amounts.

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 all six parameters (count, hqm_ore, smelter, crude_oil, metal_ore, sulfur_ore) are already documented, and the enum/range constraints come from the schema. The description's extra meaning is directed at outputs (charcoal ratio, power_draw, not_smeltable_here) rather than clarifying inputs such as the somewhat cryptic 'count' parameter. 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?

The description states precisely what the tool computes: smelt time, metal/sulfur/HQM/low-grade-fuel outputs, wood burned, charcoal made, electric furnace power draw, and whether everything fits in one fill. It is clearly a calculator rather than a lookup, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like calculate_craft_cost or calculate_power.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to model smelting/refining throughput for a given smelter and ore mix. The only explicit guidance is the caveat that values assume server-default speeds and that 'modded servers differ'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over calculate_craft_cost or calculate_power, nor any prerequisite or exclusion beyond not_smeltable_here.

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