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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the access model ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet'), which is genuine behavioral context an agent needs. However, it omits any note on units, input validation, or error behavior for a physics computation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose first, followed by the access note. No filler, though the trial-call emoji and clause sit slightly awkwardly after the technical definition.

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 two-input computation with no output schema, the description covers what it computes and the formula. It does not state the units of voltage/resistance, the returned result format, or what happens with zero resistance, which matters for a numerics tool with string-typed inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The formula 'voltage divided by resistance' does assign roles (voltage is numerator, resistance is denominator), adding real meaning beyond the bare parameter names. It adds nothing about units or the string format the schema expects, leaving a gap.

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 ('Computes current') plus the exact formula ('voltage divided by resistance'), which distinguishes the I variant from sibling x402-ohms-law-r and x402-ohms-law-v. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing from the 'I' suffix and the formula.

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?

Usage is implied by the formula: use it when current is the unknown. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over x402-ohms-law-r/v or what inputs must be known to call it. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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