force_calc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention the cost of $0.001 USDC via x402, which is a unique transparent detail, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, requires authentication, or what side effects exist. The core behavior is completely undefined.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the name, but it sacrifices all informative content. There is no redundancy, but the sentence does not earn its place because it only restates the name and adds a cost annotation that is likely already available via x402 metadata.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a generic parameter container. The description fails to explain what the tool computes, what inputs are expected, or what the output looks like. For a calculator tool with potentially many numeric inputs, this is completely inadequate.

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 schema has a single 'params' object with a generic description ('Tool parameters as JSON object') that provides no domain-specific meaning. The tool description does not explain what keys or values should be passed for force_calc, making it impossible for an agent to construct a valid request. The 100% schema coverage is misleading because the coverage is just a placeholder.

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 merely restates the tool name ('force calc') and labels it as an 'Other Utilities tool' without specifying what it actually does. There is no verb or resource describing the operation, and it fails to distinguish this from the many sibling calculator tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gravitational_force_calc or other physics calculators. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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