geometry.volume_cuboid

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closedWorld safety, and the description still adds real behavior beyond them: exact multiplication independent of caller Decimal precision, rejection of non-exactly-representable results as input errors, and the concrete failure mode of mixing cm and m. These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and formula, then constraints, then precision behavior, then the error case. No sentence is redundant and the unit warning is placed last where it is most salient.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers everything else the caller needs: input type/format, unit consistency, precision determinism, and error behavior. Nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it specifies that length/width/height are finite, non-negative Decimal strings sharing one length unit. It could still clarify edge cases like zero (valid) or scientific notation, but the essential semantics are supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('직육면체 부피 ...를 계산한다') and even states the formula length*width*height, which disambiguates from volume_cylinder/volume_sphere siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternative shapes, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

It gives input constraints (finite, non-negative Decimal strings, same unit) and a unit-mixing warning, but never states when to prefer this tool over geometry.volume_cylinder, volume_sphere, or area_rectangle. The routing decision is left to the agent's inference from the tool name.

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