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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it computes values but does not explicitly say what it returns (RPM and feed rate), nor does it mention any side effects, error handling, or assumptions. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond a basic calculation.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains no redundant words and conveys the essential information 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what the tool returns. It mentions 'spindle RPM and feed rate' but does not explicitly say these are returned, nor does it describe the output format (e.g., values in which units). It also omits any details about how the calculation differs between router and mill, which could be relevant. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and expected outputs.

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 50%, with descriptions for tool_diameter, chip_load, and cutting_speed. The description compensates by mentioning all key parameters (tool diameter, flute count, chip load, cutting speed) and clarifies the unit system (metric/imperial) and machine types (router/mill), which are not described in the schema. This adds context for the undocumented parameters, though it does not explain the exact formulas or units of output.

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 CNC spindle RPM and feed rate from specific inputs. It is specific and mentions the resource (CNC machining) and the parameters used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rpm_calculator or cutting_speed_calculator, which could overlap in purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions it works for routers and mills and supports metric/imperial, but does not state conditions for choosing it over similar calculators. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it.

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