calculate_compost_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions outputs (L/year and recommended bin volume) but does not state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or any other behavioral traits. The description lacks transparency about side effects or constraints.

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 remarkably concise with two sentences that cover the verb, purpose, use case, inputs, outputs, and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, calculation), the description is incomplete due to the inconsistency between mentioned inputs ('household size') and the actual schema. It does not clarify the output schema beyond vague units, despite an output schema existing. The inconsistency undermines completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description introduces 'household size' which is not in the schema, creating confusion. It does not explain 'depth_cm' beyond the schema's own description. The mismatch reduces the value added by the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Compute' and the resource 'compost volume produced from kitchen and garden waste over a year', and specifies the use case 'compost bin sizing'. However, it mentions 'household size' as an input which does not appear in the schema, causing slight ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'list_bundles' for related calculators.

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?

The description advises using the tool for 'compost bin sizing' and suggests seeing 'list_bundles' for related calculators, giving some context on when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond the bundle reference.

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