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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the band fraction is obtained by numerical integration and all constants come from CODATA 2018, which matters for reproducibility against other tools in the set. It stops short of disclosing precision/accuracy limits or how the 'both Wien peaks' outputs differ.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the computational scope and output list come first, with the band default and constants provenance following. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating returned quantities, which is adequate for a single-required-parameter computation tool. Gaps remain on output units and on what distinguishes the 'both Wien peaks' results, which an agent may need to interpret the response.

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 100%, including units, defaults and the greater-than-lower constraint, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces the units and the 380-760 nm default but adds no constraint or format detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (calculate) plus the concrete outputs: both Wien peaks, Planck peak spectral radiances, Stefan-Boltzmann radiant exitance, and the band power fraction for an ideal blackbody. The temperature range 1-100000 K further pins down the domain, which cleanly separates it from siblings such as photon_energy, xray_spectrum, or convert_radiation_units.

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 valid temperature range and the default band 380-760 nm imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives or when it is inappropriate (e.g. non-thermal emitters, band outside validity). Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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