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

With no annotations, the description responsibly states the formula and output unit (m/s). It does not elaborate on error handling or input constraints beyond the schema, but for a straightforward calculation tool, this level of detail is sufficient.

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 compact at four sentences, with the most critical information (purpose and formula) in the first sentence. No filler words; every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple physics calculator with one input, the description covers purpose, formula, units, and usage context. It also references related tools (list_bundles). The output schema likely exists but is not needed here, as the return unit is explicitly stated.

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 already fully describes the parameter temperature_c with its unit (Celsius) and constraints. The description merely restates this, adding no new semantic value. As schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 speed of sound in air at a given temperature,' specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning physics and audio engineering applications and providing the formula, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 advises use for physics or audio engineering and points to list_bundles for related calculators, giving helpful context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools like calculate_wavelength_frequency or calculate_ideal_gas.

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