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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations: it reports the 125% continuous-load value in addition to the raw current, which an agent must know to interpret the result correctly.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the computed quantity, its inputs, the phase scope, and an extra output value, with no filler. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the parameters are fully described in the schema. The one meaningful gap is the absence of any guidance about when this tool is preferable to its overlapping electrical-calculation siblings.

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%, including enum labels for phase and voltage, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description mentions voltage and power factor but adds no syntax, unit, or default detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific computation (current drawn by a load, in watts, at a given voltage and power factor) and its scope (single- or three-phase), which is enough to identify it as a watts-to-amps conversion. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like ohms_law or load_calculator, which could plausibly overlap.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite several overlapping siblings (load_calculator, ohms_law, nec_ampacity). The scenario implied by the formula is the only hint at appropriate use.

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