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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the equations used (V=IR, P=VI, etc.) but does not mention error handling behavior (e.g., what happens if fewer than two parameters are provided, or if the two parameters are inconsistent). It does not describe output format, precision, or units beyond the input schema. For a simple calculation tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise with only three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's core function, the second adds equations and applications, and the third provides chaining guidance. No words are wasted, and the structure is front-loaded with essential information.

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 that the tool only performs a simple calculation based on two parameters, the description covers its purpose, equations, applications, and integration with related tools. The input schema fully documents the parameters, and the presence of an output schema (though not shown) likely covers return format. All necessary context for correct use is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationships between parameters (the equations) and the real-world applications (sizing resistors, current draw). This helps the agent understand how the tool works and when to use specific parameter combinations, earning a higher score.

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?

Description clearly states it solves Ohm's Law and power equation given any two of four electrical quantities. It lists the four quantities (V, I, R, P) and the standard equations used (V=IR, P=VI, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning chaining into led_resistor or voltage_divider, establishing a unique 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?

Description explicitly says it is 'fundamental for every circuit design task' and lists practical use cases (sizing resistors, estimating current draw, etc.). It also suggests chaining into led_resistor or voltage_divider for specific applications. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternative tool names for cases that require different physics.

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