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 discloses the return of result and reciprocal, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not address potential side effects, authorization, or rate limits, though such details are less critical for a pure calculation tool.

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, with 5 short sentences that front-load the purpose. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the redundant 'Inputs' line, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 trig calculation tool with a defined input schema and output schema (as per context), the description covers the essential information: functions, units, use cases, and output. It is complete without missing critical details.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description. The description repeats 'Inputs: function, value, unit' but adds no new detail beyond the schema. The mention of returning a reciprocal is about output, not parameters.

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 it computes sin, cos, tan and inverse functions in degrees or radians. It specifies uses for geometry, physics, navigation, which distinguishes it from other calculator tools 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 description provides clear usage context (geometry, physics, navigation) and directs to list_bundles for related math calculators. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or differentiation from other specific sibling tools.

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