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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description usefully adds that it needs no authentication and never reads or saves account data. It also discloses a real modeling limitation — no bars, bump stops, tires, or aero load — which is context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation before the behavioral and limitation notes. The middle sentence 'Wheel rate compares spring changes' is slightly redundant filler that could be folded into the opening clause.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only profile. It supplies auth context and modeling limits, which is nearly everything an agent needs for this stateless calculator; only unit-system handling is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so every parameter (including unitSystem and springAngle) is already documented with units and bounds. The description touches only springRate and motionRatio at a conceptual level and adds no syntax or unit nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 transformation (spring rate + motion ratio → wheel rate) with the verb 'convert' and names the exact resource. An agent can distinguish it at a glance from neighbors like calculate_corner_balance or calculate_brake_bias, which compute different physical quantities.

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?

'for setup comparisons' and 'Wheel rate compares spring changes' give clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the closing sentence rules out cases where the result would be misleading. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating explicit prerequisites, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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