Size a duct network

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that — the shortest same-system path algorithm, per-segment summation, inferred roles, and the exact finding codes emitted. It stops short of stating assumptions (e.g. what happens when no equipment path exists beyond naming the finding).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb and scope lead, followed by the algorithm and then the return contents. Every clause carries information, though the findings list is a long run-on that could be broken up.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned recommendations, grades, and finding codes, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The main missing piece is any statement of limitations or how it differs from size_duct.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how item fields are consumed — requiredCfm carried along paths and summed per segment, existing sections graded against the recommendation, and roles inferred. That adds operational meaning not present in the schema text.

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+resource ('Size every supply, return, exhaust, and outside-air segment of a connected duct network'), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling size_duct tool, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Scope implies usage (a connected network with terminals/equipment that must be sized together), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling size_duct or when that alternative would be preferred.

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