geometry_calc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only mentions pricing ($0.001 USDC via x402) and nothing else. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what inputs are expected, what outputs are produced, or any side effects or requirements. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 short but not effectively concise; the first sentence merely repeats the name and category, and only the pricing note provides any concrete detail. It is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, failing to serve the purpose of a tool description.

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 description completely omits what geometry formulas are supported, what the 'params' object should contain, and what the output looks like. With no output schema or annotations, there is no usable information for an agent to invoke this tool correctly, making it entirely incomplete despite the large sibling list.

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 only a generic 'params' object described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which gives no clue about what shape or dimension keys to pass. Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description is superficial and the tool description adds nothing about parameters, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request.

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 restates the tool name ('geometry calc') and categorizes it as 'Other Utilities tool', but does not state what geometric computations it performs or how it differs from the many sibling utility and calculator tools. It is essentially a tautology, providing no functional 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no recommended use cases, no context for selection, and no mention of what geometry problems it solves. An agent cannot determine if this is appropriate for calculating area, volume, or anything geometry-related.

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