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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the negative scope ('does not run a calculation') and by disclosing the shape of the returned detail. It says nothing about openWorldHint implications, error behavior for an unknown id, or how large the preset catalog is.

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 tight sentences with the primary capability front-loaded and the scope limit last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name. Slightly dense packing of four return categories into one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema; the description covers both modes, the nature of the returned detail, and the boundary against calculation execution. The only meaningful gap is identifier format and failure behavior for an unknown id.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single optional 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Inspect one preset's ...' implies the id selects a single preset and that omitting it lists all, which is real added meaning, but it never says whether the id is a slug, name, or opaque key, nor what happens with an invalid value.

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 gives specific verbs (list, inspect) paired with a specific resource (scientific presets) and enumerates what inspection returns: parameters, equations, methods, custom-input schema. The closing clause 'Does not run a calculation' separates it from the experiment-execution siblings such as emt_start_experiment, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'List ... or inspect one preset's ...' encodes the selection rule: no identifier yields a catalog listing, an identifier yields detail on a single preset. The exclusion 'Does not run a calculation' rules out a plausible misuse. It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should call instead when it actually wants to run a calculation.

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