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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the exact deterministic model (c=331.3+0.606·T_C) and the return unit (m/s), letting the agent predict output without inspecting the output schema.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by domain, formula, I/O, and a cross-reference. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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, return-value detail is not required, and the description covers purpose, input, formula, and domain. It omits any note on the formula's valid temperature range (schema allows -273 °C, where the linear air model degrades), a minor but real 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 the sole parameter is already documented as 'Celsius'. The description restates 'temperature °C' and ties it to T_C in the formula, but adds no format, range, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Compute speed of sound in air at a given temperature'), scoping the medium (air) and the driving variable (temperature). It also gives the exact formula, so an agent knows precisely what computation this performs versus the many other physics calculators in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'Use for physics or audio engineering' gives a topical domain but no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and no exclusions (e.g., vs calculate_wavelength_frequency or calculate_wave_properties). The 'See list_bundles' pointer is a discovery aid rather than routing logic, leaving usage only implied.

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