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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, closed-world calculation. The description adds that the calculation supports three formula variants, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not clarify input-combination constraints or what happens if all three values are supplied.

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 extremely compact and front-loads the core formulas with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse, but as a concise statement of the calculation it is well structured.

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 and annotations cover safety, so the main missing piece is not return behavior. However, for a calculator with three optional inputs and multiple sibling tools, the description should clarify which input combinations are required and when this tool is preferable to alternatives.

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 the schema already documents the three parameters and their units. The formulas add meaningful semantic relationships beyond the schema by showing that power can be derived from voltage/current, current/resistance, or voltage/resistance.

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 gives the three electrical power formulas, so an agent can infer that it computes power from voltage, current, and resistance. However, it never explicitly states 'calculates electrical power' and does not distinguish this from near-duplicate siblings such as calculator_ee_power, calculator_power, or calculator_physics_power.

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 many sibling power and Ohm's-law calculators. The formulas imply which inputs are relevant, but they do not state selection rules or exclusions.

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