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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the one-?-variable rule and the ISO 5167 basis, but does not describe error handling (e.g., what happens if zero or multiple '?' are set) or the exact return format. This is adequate but not deeply 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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and standard, the second states the key input rule. No fluff, well-structured, front-loaded.

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?

For a calculator with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the calculation mode and the variable-selection mechanism. It could mention expected output structure or assumptions, but the stated rule is sufficient for most scenarios.

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% so the baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-parameter constraint that exactly one of [M, dP, D2] must be '?', which is not readily inferable from individual parameter descriptions. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 performs gas venturi tube sizing, differential pressure, and flow rate calculations per ISO 5167. The phrase 'Gas Venturi' distinguishes it from sibling tools like VENTURILIQ and ORIFICEGAS.

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?

It explicitly specifies the key usage rule: exactly one of M, dP, or D2 must be marked with '?' and that variable will be calculated. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like ORIFICEGAS or VENTURILIQ, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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