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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain formula but does not disclose conditional parameter requirements, error behavior, or output characteristics beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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 a single compact formula with no wasted text. It is appropriately terse for a calculator, though it lacks an explicit leading statement of purpose or mode selection.

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 tool is simple, has full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Still, it does not explicitly state that capacitive mode requires capacitance, inductive mode requires inductance, or how the optional 'type' parameter selects the formula.

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 the schema already documents frequency, capacitance, inductance, and type. The description still adds meaningful semantic value by showing exactly how f, C, and L relate to capacitive and inductive reactance.

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 formula 'Xc = 1/(2πfC) or Xl = 2πfL' identifies the tool as computing capacitive or inductive reactance, which is more specific than a vague calculator label. However, it never explicitly states the action or distinguishes this tool from related siblings like calculator_capacitor, calculator_inductor, or calculator_frequency.

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 reactance calculator versus the many sibling calculators, nor any explicit instruction on choosing capacitive versus inductive calculation. The formulas only imply the two modes.

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