ldm_calculator

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description needs to add only behavioral context, which it does: rate-limiting at 25/day with 429 retry handling, deterministic behavior, stackable semantics, the length-only fits check, and the warning/depreceived advisories. No contradiction with the 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: it defines, lists required/optional combinations, explains behavioral results, names rate-limit/retry rules, and routes to siblings. The structure is logical — concept, usage, behavior, output, related tools — with 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?

Given 9 parameters, 2 enums, no required params, and an output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the critical success condition (pallet vs custom dimensions), vehicle presets including deprecation, rate limits and retry, the result envelope fields, and the sibling-tool routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% with rich descriptions for every parameter, so the schema does most of the heavy lifting. The description adds useful cross-parameter semantics that the schema alone cannot convey: the 'pallet preset OR custom length_mm + width_mm' exclusivity, the stack_stack_height effect on floor footprint, and the effect of weight_gg enabling the payload part of fits.

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: 'Calculate loading metres (LDM) for European road freight' and defines the unit precisely ('1 LDM = 1 linear metre of a 2.4m-wide trailer'). It differentiates this calculator from related sibling tools by pointing to vehicle_lookup, pallet_fitting_calculator, and consignment_calculator with distinct one-line scopes.

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 gives explicit usage rules: 'Provide a pallet preset OR custom length_cm + width_mm — omitting both fails with a usage hint,' and explains optional-parameter trade-offs such as 'give weight_kg to also see total_weight_kg' and 'stackable = true with stack_height 2 or 3'. It also names alternatives through the Related list, letting the agent route to the right sibling.

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