gravitational_force_calc

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the $0.001 USDC x402 cost, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention read-only status, output format, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a calculator tool.

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 and front-loaded with the name, category, and cost, which serves conciseness. However, the name repetition is redundant and the sentence carries minimal substantive content, making it efficient but shallow.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a skeletal parameter definition, this calculator tool needs explicit input/output examples and usage context. The description provides none, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only contains a generic 'params' object with a vague description, and the actual nested fields (e.g., mass, distance) are not specified. The description adds no parameter information, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 mostly restates the tool name 'gravitational force calc' and adds a category and price. It lacks a specific verb like 'calculates' and does not explain what the calculation involves or how it differs from sibling tools like 'force_calc'.

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 numerous sibling calculators. No mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context is provided, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.

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