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 calculation rule but says nothing about expected units, output format, precision, error handling, or whether inputs are parsed as numbers despite being typed as strings. It implies a pure computation but gives no explicit behavioral 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 short sentences with the operation and formula front-loaded. Slightly redundant ('Force: Calculate force...'), but no wasted sentences and the required inputs are stated efficiently.

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 physics calculator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what to provide and what formula is used. It is incomplete regarding units, output format, and number parsing, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship between mass and acceleration via 'mass multiplied by acceleration' and confirms both inputs are needed, but it does not clarify units, string-to-number parsing, or expected value ranges.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Calculate force in physics') and gives the defining formula ('mass multiplied by acceleration'). It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling force-related tools such as x402-centripetal-force, x402-gravitational-force, or x402-force-unit.

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 only usage instruction is 'Provide mass and acceleration values,' which is a restatement of required inputs rather than when-to-use guidance. It does not say when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like centripetal force or gravitational force, nor does it mention unit expectations or prerequisites.

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