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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds that it produces structured artifacts rather than a solution. It does not explain canonicalization behavior or whether existing problem state is replaced, but this gap is smaller because readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already convey the core behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, the input, and the three concrete outputs with no filler. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core behavior.

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 simple one-parameter tool with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential context: what goes in and what comes out. It is slightly incomplete only in not placing itself in the problem-solving workflow relative to its siblings.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage on the only parameter, and the tool description merely refers to 'the supplied description' without explaining what constitutes a valid physical problem description, expected format, or examples. Since low schema coverage requires the description to compensate, this is insufficient even though the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Builds') and identifies specific outputs: a canonical PhysicalProblem, an Observation Graph, and an explicit unknown set. This makes the operation clearer than the title alone, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like resolve_problem or synthesize_physical_solution.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives; the description only states what it does with a supplied description. It does not mention that it is a preprocessing step before hypothesis generation or solution synthesis, nor does it name any sibling tool or exclusion condition.

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