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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the computational formula and default gravity, but it does not describe output precision, unit assumptions beyond the schema, or error behavior.

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 two short sentences with zero filler, and the core formula is front-loaded. Every sentence earns 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?

For a simple calculator with an output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps around unit assumptions are already covered by the schema.

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 mass, height, and g are already fully documented in the input schema. The formula 'm g h' adds a useful mapping of the parameters to their roles, but the default g value is repeated from the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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 exact formula 'Gravitational PE = m g h', which identifies the resource as gravitational potential energy and distinguishes it from siblings like calculator_kinetic_energy. It lacks an explicit verb, but the formula makes the operation unambiguous.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculator_kinetic_energy or calculator_energy. It also states no preconditions or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to the tool name and formula.

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