cbm_calculator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about CBM being standard for shipping and input requirements in centimetres. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in explaining CBM could be trimmed without loss.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify exactly what the tool returns. It mentions converting to cubic feet or litres but doesn't specify if the tool outputs all units or requires separate calls. A bit more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds 'Specify pieces to get total volume for multiple identical items,' which supplements the schema description for the 'pieces' parameter. No additional meaning added for length, width, height beyond what schema provides.

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 cubic metres for a shipment, explains CBM, and lists specific use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ldm_calculator or chargeable_weight_calculator by focusing on volume calculation for shipping.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to:' followed by three bullet points covering volume calculation, dimension conversion, and freight tonne determination. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context implies it is for CBM calculations only.

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