estimate_curing_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses return behavior (ready date vs capped=true when the sequence is too short) and error behavior (no_curing_stage). It also names the calculation method, which informs the agent of the model type.

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 compact and information-dense, with the main action, method, use trigger, return modes, and error case all front-loaded. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 explains the output conditions and failure mode, and an output schema exists, so the remaining gaps are acceptable. A brief note about which sibling tool to use instead would make it fully complete.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does mention daily temperatures and work types in prose but does not clarify start_date semantics or the work_code enum/units. The nested schema does contain field descriptions, so this is adequate but not a strong contribution beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action (estimate curing time), the resource class (concrete/coating work types), the input (daily temperature sequence), and the method (Nurse-Saul), which clearly distinguishes it from planning/lookup siblings. The use-case sentence also reinforces that this tool estimates curing duration rather than performing scheduling, validation, or requirements lookup.

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?

Explicitly says to use this when a work type has a curing stage and cold weather may extend duration beyond nominal, and notes that it fails with no_curing_stage for work types without one. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide a full when-not-to-use list, so it stops short of a 5.

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