running_pace_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary output (pace per km) and additional outputs (projected race times). It does not mention side effects or error handling, but for a pure calculator, this is adequate. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the output nature.

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 description is two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional output is mentioned succinctly. Every word earns its place.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to call it correctly: inputs are clear from parameter names, and outputs are described. It does not specify exact output formatting (e.g., pace units or race time format), but this is likely predictable for a running pace calculator. Overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'distance and time' but does not clarify units or ranges beyond what the parameter names (distanceKm, timeMinutes) already imply. The description adds no substantive information about the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool calculates pace per km from distance and time, and additionally projects half-marathon and marathon times. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling calculators (BMI, BMR, etc.) by its running-specific 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?

The tool's domain is obvious from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Since all siblings are different types of calculators, the context is clear, but the description does not state exclusions or conditional usage.

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