calculate_surface_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly identifies this as a calculation and mentions the waste factor, but it does not clarify whether the result includes waste in the total, how waste_percent is applied, or any rounding/edge-case behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, object, unit, and special input requirement efficiently.

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 simple arithmetic tool with an output schema, the core purpose and units are present. However, waste-factor semantics and guidance about when to choose this over related calculate_* siblings are missing, leaving the definition adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds 'rectangular' and 'square feet' to clarify length_ft and width_ft, and 'waste factor' maps to waste_percent, but it does not explain the percentage semantics or the default behavior. This is only partial compensation.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Calculate'), a concrete resource ('rectangular area'), and a unit ('square feet'). The waste-factor clause further differentiates it from sibling tools like calculate_concrete_volume and calculate_linear_pieces.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need rectangular area with a waste factor. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, so the agent must infer routing from the description and sibling names.

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