moving_cube_sheet_lookup

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses notable behavioral traits: accepted query variants (aliases, plurals, typos, size hints), what each match contains (value, cross-sheet range, alternatives, 7 lb/cu ft weighted value, re-verification status), and an explicit exclusion ('never includes prices'). It stops short of covering performance, limits, or confirmation behavior, but for a read-style lookup this is solid.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then usage triggers, then accepted input, then output shape, ending on a terse exclusion. Every sentence adds information, though it runs a little long and could tighten the output enumeration now that an output schema exists.

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?

For a lookup tool with an output schema present, the description needn't restate return values yet does so usefully, and it covers purpose, usage, and input flexibility. The main gap is undocumented non-query parameters, which no other structured field fills.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly for the required 'query' parameter, explaining accepted input forms, but leaves 'room', 'limit', and 'units' (which has an enum) completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 precise verb and resource: 'look up how many cubic feet (and pounds) the movers' cube sheet assigns to an item'. The scope (cube-sheet reference values, not estimates) is clear enough to separate it from the moving_estimate_* siblings. An agent can tell this is a catalog lookup, not a computation.

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?

Gives two concrete usage contexts ('why 50 cu ft for my sofa?' and 'find the right catalog name before building an inventory'), which is richer than generic context. However it names no explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition relative to the many moving_* siblings, 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.