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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not that this is a pure deterministic calculation, not the formula, not required inputs or units. It contributes zero 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?

It is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness: the single sentence is a redundant restatement of the name and contains no usable 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 two-parameter calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state the formula and units. It provides none of this, leaving an agent unable to confirm what V represents or how current and resistance combine.

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 even though the description adds no parameter meaning. The schema's own descriptions ('Current to process', 'Resistance to process') are vague about units, but the description fails to compensate or add anything beyond them.

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 'Ohms Law V: Ohms Law V' merely repeats the tool name twice and adds no verb or resource framing. An agent can infer it computes voltage from Ohm's law, but the description itself is a tautology rather than a statement of purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools x402-ohms-law-i and x402-ohms-law-r, which solve for the other two variables. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or routing information.

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