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

Annotations already cover the safety profile as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: inputs are hypotheses rather than measurements, and the tool deliberately avoids object-origin conclusions. It does not discuss output format, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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?

Two dense sentences with no wasted words. The primary computation is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important scope caveat about hypotheses and origin conclusions.

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 read-only computational tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description provides purpose and scope caveats but omits return-value semantics. An agent knows what the tool computes, but not the exact output shape or how to interpret the minimum transverse speeds. This is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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?

With five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It names the core concepts—angular speed, candidate distances, and a claimed speed-distance pair—which maps to all five parameters collectively. However, it does not explain the distance_min_km/distance_max_km relationship or add semantic detail beyond what their names imply.

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?

States a specific computational purpose: convert angular speed and candidate distances to minimum transverse speeds, and check a claimed speed-distance pair. It also distinguishes itself from origin-determination tools by saying 'no object-origin conclusion'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any named sibling, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 gives implied usage through the computation and caveats: distance hypotheses are supplied, not measured, and it does not conclude object origin. These are useful when-not signals, but no alternative tools or explicit selection guidance are provided, leaving usage largely inferred.

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