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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description instead contributes model provenance and assumptions (PARMA 4.10 grids, JAEA, US Standard Atmosphere, vertical cut-off rigidity for the present epoch, A340 reference mass, log-linear altitude / linear Rc-W interpolation). It does not state accuracy or uncertainty, so it stops short of a 5, but the assumptions disclosed are exactly what an agent needs to judge fitness.

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?

Front-loads the computed quantity and units before model details, and every clause is substantive. The parenthetical model stack (PARMA/US Standard Atmosphere/A340/interpolation) is dense and partially redundant with the range restatements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 still names both returned rate quantities, their units (uSv/h), and the additional stay/flight effective dose, so an agent knows what comes back. The env/altitude coupling and the solar-input rule cover the non-obvious invocation risks.

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 71%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the w_index/solar mutual exclusivity is stated only in prose, and solar enum values are anchored in time (min = December 2009, max = August 2024). Ranges restated from the schema (0-150, 0-20 km, 0-6 km) are redundant, and how `hours` maps to "effective dose of a stay or flight" is only implied.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and named quantities (cosmic-ray ambient dose equivalent rate H*(10) and effective dose rate E, ICRP 116) in explicit units, scoped to cabin (0-20 km) or ground (0-6 km). No sibling tool in the list computes cosmic-ray/aviation dose, and the description explicitly disclaims route integration, routing that need to EXPACS.

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?

States when to use (single position, cabin or ground, given latitude/longitude and solar activity) and when not to ("Galactic cosmic rays only, one position and no route integration; for route doses use EXPACS"). It also resolves the solar-activity input choice: "Give either w_index (0-150) or solar (min ... max)".

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