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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload keys (energy_joules, energy_kj, energy_kwh) and the underlying formulas, but says nothing about error behavior or what happens when required inputs for a chosen mode are omitted.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: scope first, return payload second, related-calculator pointer last. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return structure, and the formulas implicitly reveal which parameters each mode consumes — important since only 'type' is marked required. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on invalid or missing per-mode inputs.

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% and the schema already tags each parameter with its mode ('Force N (work)', 'Height m (potential)'). The formulas in the description imply the m/v, m/h, F/d parameter pairings, but this largely restates what the schema labels already convey, so the baseline 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 verb (Calculate) plus the exact physics quantities covered, with formulas attached to each mode, so an agent immediately knows the tool's scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling calculate_kinetic_energy, which overlaps with its 'kinetic' mode.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing away from the overlapping kinetic-energy sibling. The 'See list_bundles for related science calculators' line is a cross-reference, not guidance on selecting this tool over an alternative.

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