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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (solving for one variable given two) but lacks details on precision, rounding, error handling, or any side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a reference to related tools. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff. Front-loaded with the core formula.

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 output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and parameter selection. Minor gap: no mention of unit conversions or precision, but not critical for a calculator tool.

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?

The schema covers all parameters (voltage, current, resistance) with brief descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying 'any 2 of (V volts, I amps, R ohms)' and the relationship between them, which is beyond the schema's individual explanations.

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 'Compute Ohm's law: V=I·R' and specifies the verb 'compute/solve' and resource 'Ohm's law'. It distinguishes from sibling calculators by referencing 'list_bundles for related science calculators', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit context: 'Use for electronics.' and specifies inputs ('any 2 of V, I, R') and output ('Returns the third'). It does not state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for basic usage.

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