pallet_fitting_calculator

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

Adds substantial behavioral details beyond the annotations: deterministic geometric fitting only, no interlocked or mixed orientations, weight-limit capping behavior, default pallet_deck_height_cm, error behavior for missing or non-positive dimensions, and rate-limiting with retry details and 429 handling. The description does not contradict annotations and enriches what it means for the operation to be read-only and idempotent.

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 structured into clear labeled sections: Behavior, Returns, Limitations, Related. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and each additional section provides vital operational context without wasted words. It is longer than average but every sentence serves a functional purpose.

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?

The description covers the full calling context: what the result includes, which alternative tools to consider, limitations, rate limiting, retry behavior, and callback to a subscription tool for higher limits. The presence of an output schema is not ambiguous, and the in-description return list is sufficient for an agent to plan its use.

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% with each parameter described, including defaults and examples. The description does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond that, though it confirms the relation between max_payload_kg and weight_limited and allow_rotation with the mention of 90-degree rotation. Since the schema already carries the full parameter meaning, a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate how many identical boxes fit on a pallet' and enumerates the exact outputs. It distinguishes itself from related tools by citeing ldm_calculator, vehicle_lookup, and container_lookup with their different roles.

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?

Related tools are named with their distinct purposes ('pallets into trailer length', 'capacity per vehicle', 'pallets into containers'), which implicitly routes an agent. No explicit 'when to use vs when not' statement is present, but the limitations paragraph makes the scope clear.

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