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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the output content ('ratio and torque multiplier') but no behavioral context such as assumptions about units, edge cases, or rate limits, so it earns a baseline rather than a high score.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then domains, then inputs, then outputs. The final cross-reference to list_bundles is tangential to the calculation itself but is cheap and potentially useful for discovery.

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 the return shape, and annotations already carry the safety semantics. It covers purpose, domains, inputs, and a discovery pointer, which is sufficient for a two-parameter, single-formula calculator, though a note on units or the driving/driven convention would have closed the last gap.

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 both parameters are already documented as 'Driving gear teeth' and 'Driven gear teeth'. The description's 'driver teeth, driven teeth' restates that in slightly looser wording and adds no syntax, unit, or constraint detail, 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 verb ('Compute') and resource ('gear ratio'), and extends the scope to 'torque/speed multiplication', which tells an agent exactly what computation is performed. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the very similar siblings calculate_braquet, calculate_velo_development, or calculate_motor_torque, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 lists domain contexts ('mechanical engineering, cycling, automotive'), which is implied usage guidance, and it cross-references list_bundles for related 'science' calculators. It never states when NOT to use this tool or why an agent should pick it over the closely related gear/cycling calculators in the sibling list.

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