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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, closed-world computation, so the description carries a lighter burden. It does add one piece of behavioral information beyond the annotations — that power is computed as P = I²R in addition to solving for R/V/I — but says nothing about what happens when fewer than two inputs are supplied, which is the key behavioral ambiguity here.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than verbose, which is the better failure mode but still leaves structure gaps.

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?

The presence of an output schema and read-only annotations covers return values and safety, but the tool has three optional parameters and zero required ones, so an agent genuinely needs to be told how many inputs to provide and what happens with one or three. Combined with the crowded field of overlapping electrical siblings, the description is too thin to call this correctly.

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 reported at 100%, but the parameter descriptions are tautological ('Current.', 'Voltage.', 'Resistance.'), so the schema conveys almost nothing. The description's 'Solve R/V/I' hints that the three values are interrelated and any two determine the third, which is useful, but it never states units, how many inputs are required, or which pair yields which output.

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 names the quantities involved (R/V/I) and the derived quantity (P = I²R), which is more specific than the title 'Resistor Calculator'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as calculator_ee_ohms_law, calculator_ohms_law, or calculator_ee_power, so an agent cannot tell which of these to pick from the description alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for the same Ohm's-law/power computation. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the formula, which overlaps with at least three sibling tools.

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