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

Annotations already cover the non-destructive, idempotent read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: the exact formula used, that the balloon/drone/aircraft/satellite limits are illustrative comparisons, and the important interpretive caveat that it makes no claim about object origin.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core computation, no filler. Slightly dense packing of formula, comparison set, and caveat but all sentences earn their 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?

For a 5-parameter, no-output-schema computation tool, the description covers the operation, the comparison outputs, and the scope disclaimer. It omits what the distance sweep actually produces (tables? per-band speeds?) and unit expectations beyond the schema's implicit names, leaving the agent to infer the return shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does conceptually: it accounts for angular speed, candidate distance range, and claimed speed/distance. However it never explains that distance_min_km/distance_max_km define a scan sweep, their bounds, or how the claimed pair interacts with the range, leaving real gaps.

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 transformation (angular speed -> minimum transverse speed via v = ω·d) plus reference comparisons and a claimed-pair check. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling set of orbital/statistical/simulation tools, though it doesn't name a near-neighbor explicitly.

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 context of use is implied: an agent with an observed angular rate wanting a distance-constrained speed bound, or a claimed speed-distance pair to test. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to an alternative, so guidance is present but only inferred.

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