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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the formulas: it does not say what happens when only one value is supplied, when all three are supplied but mutually inconsistent, or which parameter takes precedence. For a tool with all-optional parameters, that ambiguity is behavioral and material.

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?

One line with no wasted words and the formulae are front-loaded. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification: the single sentence is not enough to support correct invocation given three optional parameters.

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 the schema documents the parameters. What is missing is the one thing only the description can supply: required=[] with three optional electrical quantities means the agent must know to pass exactly two, and that constraint is not stated.

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% and each parameter is labeled with its symbol, so the baseline is 3. The formulas do imply the valid pairings (V+I, I+R, V+R), which is mild added meaning, but the description never states that exactly two of the three inputs are needed, so the key semantic point is left implicit.

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 formulas 'P = V×I, I²R, or V²/R' do identify the computation as electrical power, so the agent knows what the tool produces, but there is no verb and no statement of what the tool returns. The crowded sibling set containing calculator_electrical_power, calculator_power, calculator_physics_power, and calculator_ee_ohms_law is not addressed at all, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this from near-duplicates.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the several overlapping power and Ohm's-law calculators. No prerequisites, no input-combination rules, and no exclusions are stated; the agent must infer everything from the formulas.

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