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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool computes distances (a read/calculation operation), but does not disclose any behavioral constraints like rate limits, data requirements, or side effects. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the tool's name.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage, inputs, and a cross-reference. It front-loads the key action. However, the inclusion of an incorrect parameter reduces efficiency, costing a point.

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 the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate overall context. However, the erroneous mention of 'reaction time' creates confusion and undermines completeness.

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?

Although the input schema covers 100% of parameters, the description incorrectly lists 'reaction time s' as an input, which is not in the schema. This misleads the agent into expecting a parameter that doesn't exist, reducing the usefulness of the description. The schema already sufficiently describes speed_kmh and condition.

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 clearly states the tool computes reaction and braking distance based on road condition, using specific verbs like 'Compute' and identifying the resource ('braking distance'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'driver safety education' and pointing to the bundle 'auto-transport' for related calculators.

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 explicitly recommends use for driver safety education and directs users to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative tools, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity but slightly limits guidance.

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