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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses the formula and return of photon energy, but does not clarify behavior when both inputs are given, assumptions (e.g., vacuum), or error handling. Adequate but missing some 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?

Two concise sentences: first covers purpose and operation, second adds output and reference to related tools. Every sentence is essential, no fluff.

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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers core functionality and related calculators. Minor omission: no mention of input validation when both provided, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that only one input is needed and relates them via the formula, aiding correct invocation beyond the schema.

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 solves c=λ·f for EM waves, specifies inputs (wavelength or frequency), and additional output (photon energy). It distinguishes itself from sibling calculators like calculate_energy_physics by focusing on EM wave properties.

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 implies usage: provide one of wavelength or frequency. It points to list_bundles for related calculators but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or identify alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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