calculate_sheet_imposition_yield

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Computes' implies a side-effect-free calculation, and the description usefully names the three computed outputs, but it does not state assumptions such as whether item rotation/grain direction is handled or whether the result is deterministic and unit-consistent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that states the operation and its outputs. Nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values; naming yield, utilization, and trim waste partially does this. Still, for a six-parameter geometry calculation with no annotations, it omits assumptions (rotation, grain, waste definition) and output format/units, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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 schema already documents all six parameters (including defaults and example values for widths/heights). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Computes') plus the exact outputs (maximum item yield, sheet area utilization, trim waste) and the domain (cutting small items from large parent press sheets). This is clearly distinguishable from the siblings (spine width, unit conversion, paper weight), which cover unrelated print 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 stated scenario ('when cutting small items from large parent press sheets') implicitly tells the agent when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives, so a human or agent is left to infer the fit.

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