calculate_moving_volume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions outputs ('Returns m³ and truck size recommendation') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, destructuring behavior, or error handling. Moreover, the description lists inputs like 'home size, rooms, furniture density' that are not reflected in the actual input schema, creating a potential contradiction that could confuse an 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 relatively concise at three sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it includes unnecessary detail about non-existent inputs, which slightly detracts from conciseness. Overall, it is still efficient and structured well.

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 tool has a simple schema (one enum parameter) and an output schema exists, the description covers the output (m³ and truck size) and usage. However, the mismatch between described inputs and actual schema reduces completeness, as an agent might attempt to pass non-existent parameters. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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% (one parameter with description), but the description adds extraneous inputs not present in the schema (home size, rooms, furniture density). This creates confusion about what the tool actually accepts. The added information does not clarify the existing parameter's semantics; instead, it suggests more inputs than available, leading to potential misuse.

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's purpose: 'Estimate moving volume (m³) by home type and contents.' It specifies the verb (estimate) and resource (moving volume), and includes a use case ('Use for moving company quotes'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, which cover a wide range of unrelated calculations.

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 clear usage context: 'Use for moving company quotes' and directs to a related bundle with 'See list_bundles for related 'vie-quotidienne' calculators.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand appropriate scenarios.

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