moving_recommend_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the sizing algorithm (floor area × ceiling height), the 0.65-0.80 usable fraction with the aisle adjustment, and that it additionally reports the next smaller unit and two-unit combinations. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but for a computation-only tool those are minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and sized reasonably for the amount of computational context needed. The volume/usable-space sentence is dense but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the description usefully previews the smaller-unit and two-unit outputs. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, deferring most parameter meaning to moving_recommend_truck leaves the definition under-complete on its own.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It explains ceiling_ft (8 ft typical) and efficiency (0.65-0.80), but leaves units, estimate, estimate_id, volume_cuft, and box_fraction entirely unexplained, defaulting to 'Input as in moving_recommend_truck' which gives no local meaning.

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 verb and resource: pick a self-storage unit size (5x5 up to 10x30) for a load. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like moving_recommend_truck or moving_recommend_container. It doesn't explicitly say why you'd choose storage over truck/container, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Input as in moving_recommend_truck' points to an input-format reference in a sibling, but that is not a usage condition. No prerequisites or alternative routing are given.

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