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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior, but it only states the core calculation and flow condition. It omits critical behavioral details such as the requirement for a leak diameter (h), assumptions (e.g., orifice flow model), output format, or how T2 is used. This incompleteness could mislead an agent.

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 front-loads the primary action and output, with no wasted words. It is concise and clearly structured.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain the output structure, the logic for CHOKED/SUBCRITICAL, the role of downstream temperature T2, or even the fact that a leak diameter is required. This is insufficient for a complex thermal calculation tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with explicit names like 'Upstream Pressure' and 'Pin-hole Diameter', which are self-explanatory. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and identifies a clear resource ('steam leak mass flow') along with the output ('flow condition (CHOKED / SUBCRITICAL)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like CVSTEAM or STEAMFLASH, which have different purposes.

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 usage for steam leak calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The context 'based on upstream and downstream conditions' gives some clue, but there is no mention of competing tools like ORIFICEGAS or PIPESTEAM.

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