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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the computation but does not reveal any traits beyond the name (e.g., read-only nature, side effects). As a calculation tool, the behavior is largely implicit, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage context, input/output summary, and a reference to related tools. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (3 parameters, clear physics calculation) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, what inputs it needs, and what returns. The pointer to list_bundles adds extra completeness.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description lists the parameters (velocity, angle, height) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool computes projectile trajectory including range, max height, and time of flight. It clearly identifies the resource (projectile motion) and action (compute), distinguishing it from sibling calculator tools by specifying the physics domain.

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 suggests using it for physics or ballistics, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention specific alternatives, only a pointer 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.