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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that side c is always the hypotenuse, and that the tool also returns area, perimeter, and a confirmation of a right triangle. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 structurally front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. It covers inputs, outputs, applications, and chaining in a single paragraph. The list of applications (surveying, construction, etc.) is somewhat verbose but does not detract significantly. A slightly more concise version could omit these without losing utility.

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 no annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is thorough. It explains inputs, outputs, usage constraints, and real-world applications. For a simple mathematical tool, it provides all necessary context for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke it.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship (a² + b² = c²) and the role of each side (legs vs hypotenuse). It also includes derived outputs like area formula, which enriches beyond schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'Solve for any side of a right triangle using the Pythagorean theorem', clearly identifying the verb (solve) and resource (sides of a right triangle). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning chaining with slope_calc and square_root, but the core purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explains that the user must provide any two of the three sides and the missing side is computed. It also mentions chaining with other tools for extended functionality. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or exclude it from non-right triangles, which would improve clarity.

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