calculate_dress_alterations

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states it returns cost and time estimates, which is appropriate, but the critical mismatch between described inputs (alterations type) and actual schema inputs (measurements) misrepresents how the tool works, harming transparency for the agent.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and has a logical flow: function, use case, inputs/outputs, reference to sibling tools. No wasted words, though the input misalignment detracts slightly.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description's input mismatch makes the tool incomplete for an agent. The agent cannot correctly map its intended alteration request to the required body measurements and target size. Without clarifying this mapping, the description is incomplete for effective tool usage.

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 100%, baselining at 3, but the description does not add meaning to the actual parameters. Instead, it describes completely different inputs ('hem, sides, sleeves, garment type'), which is misleading and fails to compensate for any gaps. This severely undermines parameter understanding.

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 tool estimates dress alteration cost and time, specifying verb 'estimate' and resource 'dress alteration'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'textile-mode' calculators via list_bundles. However, the mismatch between described inputs (alterations needed, garment type) and schema inputs (body measurements, target size) slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use for tailoring or wedding-dress budgeting') and hints at alternatives ('See list_bundles for related textile-mode calculators'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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