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

The description accurately describes a read-only calculation (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation) and discloses the 180° shutter rule. No hidden behaviors or side effects are implied. It adds context beyond annotations by mentioning the specific calculation method.

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 sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists outputs. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 calculation tool with 3 parameters (all documented) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs: inputs, calculation, and outputs. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a deterministic calculator.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it confirms duration is used to compute final clip length, but this is already implied by the schema description. No deeper semantics are added.

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 clearly states the tool computes a slow-motion factor from recording and playback fps, listing outputs (multiplier, shutter, duration). It is specific and useful, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling calculators like 'calcular_regla_180_video', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without indicating context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. Given many sibling calculator tools, this omission leaves the agent without decision support.

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