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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it never explains what 'auto' mode does, what happens when no parameters are supplied, how phase_angle and power_factor interact, or what units are assumed — the exact behaviors an agent needs for a compute tool with all-optional inputs.

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?

It is a single non-wasteful clause with no filler, which is good. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient density, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, a seven-parameter tool with zero required inputs and a mode switch demands guidance on which parameters each mode consumes; that guidance is entirely absent, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer usage from the schema alone.

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%, so each of the seven parameters is documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description contributes no additional meaning — notably it never clarifies how mode selects which inputs are required or how power_factor relates to phase_angle.

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 fragment names concrete capabilities — RMS/peak conversion and real/apparent/reactive AC power — so the resource is identifiable. It offers no verb and no differentiation from near-neighbors such as calculator_ee_power, calculator_electrical_power, or calculator_power_convert, leaving the agent to guess which power tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of any alternative. With 130+ sibling calculators including several electrical-power tools, the agent gets no routing signal at all.

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