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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the '?' selection mechanism, but does not disclose what happens if multiple unknowns are provided, whether k has a default, how results are returned, or any potential restrictions. For a calculation tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately follows with the critical usage rule. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the key invocation pattern. It does not explicitly mention the return value (e.g., the calculated variable) or the optional k parameter, though the schema covers k's default. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but could be slightly richer.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by consolidating the '?' rule for M, dP, and D2 into a single constraint, clarifying that only one can be calculated at a time. This supplements the schema descriptions without redundancy.

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's function: gas orifice sizing, differential pressure, and flow rate calculation based on ISO 5167. The word 'Gas' distinguishes it from sibling tools like ORIFICELIQ, and the specific verb 'sizing / calculation' makes 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 provides an explicit usage rule: exactly one of M, dP, D2 must be set to '?', and that variable will be calculated. This is strong guidance for invocation. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., ORIFICELIQ for liquid) or when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.