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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, closed-world calculation. The description adds that any one variable can be solved for, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose what happens if an incorrect number of parameters is supplied or how validation errors are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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 three-parameter calculator with an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides the essential formula and variable relationship. The main remaining gap is that it does not explicitly state the required input cardinality or error behavior.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by giving the equation v = f × λ, linking the frequency, wave_speed, and wavelength parameters, and indicating that any one may be omitted. It stops short of explicitly mapping v to wave_speed or stating that exactly two inputs are required.

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 states a specific action and formula: solving v = f × λ for any one missing quantity. This is clear and distinguishes the tool as a wave-equation solver, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like calculator_frequency or calculator_speed.

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 phrase 'for any one missing quantity' implies the input pattern, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of calculator_frequency or calculator_speed, nor does it provide exclusions or error conditions.

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