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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the formula and that it returns force in newtons, which is accurate for a simple calculation. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations, but given the tool's nature, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then usage details, then a pointer to related tools. No redundant information. Efficient and well-structured.

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 physics tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the formula, units, and points to related calculators. It could elaborate on the role of the third parameter, but overall it is largely complete.

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%, with each parameter having a brief description. The description repeats the input units but does not explain the third parameter (force_n) or clarify that the tool might compute any of the three variables given the other two. Schema provides baseline, but description adds minimal new value.

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 it computes force using Newton's second law, with specific formula and units. It identifies the tool as a physics calculator, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling physics tools like calculate_kinetic_energy or calculate_projectile_motion.

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 says 'Use for physics problems' and specifies inputs and output, which implies context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond a generic reference to list_bundles for related calculators.

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