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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet says nothing about the formula used, units expected for mass/radius, or what is returned. For a computational tool this leaves the agent to infer behavior from the generic parameter names alone.

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 sentence is short but conveys no information, so this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is front-loaded around a name restatement instead of the actual capability.

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 two-parameter physics calculator with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits formula, units, and return value entirely. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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%, so the schema technically documents both parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning (units, acceptable formats) beyond the schema's bare 'Mass to process' and 'Radius to process' labels.

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 'Escape Velocity: Velocity of escape.' merely restates the tool name and title, which is the definition of a tautology. It never states the actual operation (computing escape velocity from a body's mass and radius) nor distinguishes itself from physics siblings like x402-velocity or x402-angular-velocity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as x402-velocity, x402-gravitational-force, or x402-orbital tools. No preconditions, no exclusions, no routing cues are given.

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