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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the core calculation and return units but does not discuss edge cases (e.g., displacement near zero), error handling, or precision. The behavior is simple and safe, but more transparency would be helpful.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and formula, then adding usage context. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Highly efficient.

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 calculation tool with a clear input schema and an output schema (as indicated), the description is complete enough. It covers the equation, units, and typical use cases. Minor omission: no mention of displacement's minimum value (covered by schema).

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 describes parameters with units. The description adds value by stating the Hooke's law formula, explaining how force_n and displacement_m are used to compute k. This aids understanding beyond the schema, though schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool computes the spring constant k using Hooke's law, specifying inputs (force N, displacement m) and output (N/m). It explicitly mentions usage for physics or mechanical design, distinguishing it from other calculate tools.

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 says 'Use for physics or mechanical design' and suggests viewing list_bundles for related calculators, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives. Usage is implied but not definitive.

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