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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about what the tool computes, whether it mutates state, what inputs it expects, or what it returns.

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 short but not meaningfully concise — it is under-specified and redundant. Every word repeats the tool name without contributing 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 mathematical tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this tool, what input it acts on, or what result to expect.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no value, but the absence of parameters means the agent cannot be misled about arguments.

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 is 'Complex Magnitude: Complex Magnitude', which is a pure tautology — it restates the tool name without adding a verb, resource, or any functional explanation. It provides no differentiation from sibling complex-number tools like complex-add or complex-angle.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as complex-magnitude's siblings (complex-angle, complex-conjugate, etc.). There is no context, no when-to-use statement, and no exclusions.

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