calculate_speed_distance_time

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic operation. It mentions 'Returns: {error}' which is ambiguous and does not clarify the success output format. For a tool with no annotations, the description should disclose units, formula assumptions, and error handling.

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 with the core instruction and a cross-reference. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded for quick parsing.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it mentions 'Returns: {error}' which is vague and potentially misleading. The tool is simple, but the description does not fully equip an agent to handle edge cases or understand the result structure. More context on the calculation and output would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for speed (km/h), distance (km), and time (minutes). The description adds the context of providing any two, but does not enhance semantic understanding beyond the schema. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'solve speed/distance/time' and specifies the usage pattern 'provide any 2 of 3 values to compute the missing one'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing 'list_bundles' for related sport calculators, though it could be more explicit about its unique function.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have two of the three values), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The reference to 'list_bundles' hints at categorization but lacks direct usage guidance relative to siblings.

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