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. It discloses that values are 'nominal' and 'not design guidance,' which is an important caveat about the tool's reliability and intended use. It also indicates that rotation is provided only 'when a bolt length is given,' setting expectations for conditional behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a vital caveat. Every phrase earns its place: it identifies the standard (RCSC), the bolt grades (A325/A490), the input (diameter, optional length), and the output type (pretension, rotation), with no redundancy.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description provides sufficient context for a simple lookup: it names the inputs, the output concept (minimum pretension, turn-of-the-nut rotation), and the important caveat about design use. It does not explicitly state the units of the returned pretension or whether both values are always returned, but the description is adequate for the tool's modest complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with dia and length_in already fully documented in the input schema (e.g., 'fraction ("3/4") or decimal (0.75)' and 'for the turn-of-the-nut rotation'). The tool description merely restates this information ('by diameter,' 'when a bolt length is given') without adding new meaning, so a baseline of 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 provides 'RCSC minimum pretension for A325/A490 structural bolts by diameter' and 'turn-of-the-nut rotation' when length is given. This distinctly identifies the resource (bolt pretension values) and separates it from the sibling tools (e.g., steel_plate_weight, steel_shape_weight), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes 'Published nominal values for estimating and orientation, not design guidance,' providing clear when-to-use (estimating/orientation) and when-not-to-use (design) guidance. It does not name alternative tools, but the exclusion is explicit and the context is clear.

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