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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the computation itself and that the caller must supply force and distance, but says nothing about expected units (N·m vs lb-ft), output format, or error behavior for missing/non-numeric input. Adequate for a trivial pure computation, but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the operation and formula. The leading 'Torque:' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name and the input requirement is a mild restatement, but there is no filler.

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 computational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation but omits output units, numeric input format, and result precision — details an agent would need to call it correctly. Minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema text is placeholder-quality ('Force to process'), adding no unit or format information. The description's 'Provide force and distance values' adds no meaning beyond naming the two 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate torque') and even gives the formula (force × distance / lever arm), so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors in the sibling list such as x402-work, x402-force, or x402-mechanical-advantage, which also involve force and distance.

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 cue is the phrase 'in physics'; there is no statement of when to choose this over x402-work or x402-force, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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