electrical_calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a $0.001 USDC fee, which is a useful cost trait, but does not disclose what the tool computes, whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or returns. This is minimal transparency, warranting a 2.

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 short (two sentences), but the first sentence repeats the tool name and category, adding no value, while the second provides cost information. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness, as the single useful fact (cost) is buried in a redundant phrase.

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?

Given the tool's likely complexity (electrical calculations), the complete lack of behavioral information, meaningful parameter documentation, or output details makes the description severely incomplete. There is no output schema and no annotations to fill gaps. The agent cannot determine what to pass or what to expect, so this is nearly as deficient as the 'Process' example.

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?

The input schema has a single 'params' property described only as 'Tool parameters as JSON object'—a generic passthrough that conveys no meaningful parameter names, types, or formats. The description does not compensate by explaining expected fields or example inputs. Even though the schema coverage is technically high, the coverage is not informative, so the score is 1.

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 'electrical calc — Other Utilities tool' largely restates the tool name and assigns a generic category, but does not specify what the tool actually computes or the resource it acts on. It lacks a specific verb and resource, so it remains unclear whether this performs Ohm's law calculations, power conversions, or something else entirely. This earns a 2 because it is effectively tautological.

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 many sibling calculator tools (loan_calculator, geometry_calc, etc.). The only additional information is the cost, which does not inform tool selection. With no context or exclusions, this is a clear 'no guidance' case.

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