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

No annotations provided, so description must convey all behavioral traits. It describes a simple calculation without side effects, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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: purpose, usage context, inputs/outputs, and a pointer to related tools. No redundant information; front-loads the core action.

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 simplicity (two numeric inputs, a straightforward formula) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it computes, when to use it, what inputs and outputs to expect, and where to find related calculators.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds output units (Pa, kPa, bar, psi) and the formula, though it incorrectly states area in m² while the schema uses cm². This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, but the unit discrepancy reduces clarity.

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?

Description clearly states it computes hydraulic pressure using P=F/A, specifies inputs (force in N, area in m²) and outputs (multiple pressure units). This differentiates it from sibling calculator tools by its specific topic.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Use for hydraulic design.' Suggests consulting 'list_bundles' for related science calculators, which guides the agent to alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name specific sibling tools.

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