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 underlying formula but says nothing about units expected for mass/velocity, the output format (scalar? units?), or numeric handling, which are the meaningful behavioral traits for a 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?

Two short sentences that front-load the purpose and formula with no padding. Efficient, though the trailing instruction adds little beyond the schema.

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 pure-computation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, but leaves unit expectations and result format unspecified. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 already documents both mass and velocity, and the description merely restates them ('Provide mass and velocity values'). It adds no unit or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Calculate momentum in physics') and even gives the formula (mass multiplied by velocity), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the many other physics/formula siblings (force, energy, work, etc.), but the purpose itself is clear.

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 says only 'Provide mass and velocity values' with no indication of when to prefer this over sibling calculators like force, impulse, or kinetic-energy, nor any prerequisite or unit conventions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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