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, and it discloses nothing. It does not state the formula (R = V/I), the expected units, whether inputs must be numeric, or what the response contains. For a compute tool with zero structured behavioral metadata, this is a complete gap.

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 text is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The duplicated name string earns nothing and there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two siblings that differ only in the solved-for variable, the description should at minimum name the formula and the variables. It supplies none of that, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly in the presence of the near-identical x402-ohms-law-i and x402-ohms-law-v.

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% with two parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's own texts ("Current to process", "Voltage to process") omit units, but the structured fields are present for both inputs.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name: "Ohms Law R: Ohms Law R". It never states that the tool computes resistance, so the agent must infer the resource from the name alone. It does not distinguish this from the sibling tools x402-ohms-law-i and x402-ohms-law-v, which differ only by which variable is solved for.

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 the two sibling Ohm's-law variants (solve for I, solve for V). Nothing indicates that current and voltage are the inputs, nor what condition would select this tool. The agent is left to guess from the name suffix.

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