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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds that it returns all four results at once, which is not captured in annotations, providing useful behavioral context. The schema separately documents the non-negative constraint for square root, so the description adds value without contradiction.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the main purpose and rationale without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter calculator with a comprehensive schema, output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and why it returns multiple results. No additional behavioral context is needed; the schema and annotations handle the rest.

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 the parameter n fully described including the non-negative constraint for the square root branch. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond saying 'of a number,' so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the computed operations (square root, cube root, square, cube) and notes it returns all four at once, distinguishing it from a tool that computes only one operation. This makes its purpose clear and specific beyond the tool name.

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 phrase 'so callers don't have to call four tools' provides clear context that this tool should be used when any of these calculations are needed, implying a convenience over calling separate tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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