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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, deterministic calculation. The description adds useful domain behavior beyond that: it assumes full charge collection without gain and specifies operating temperatures for Si and Ge, which materially affects interpretation of the result.

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 compact and front-loads the returned quantities, followed by assumptions and defaults. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 five-parameter physics calculator with no output schema, the description does well by listing output quantities, stating assumptions, and giving defaults. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related calculations, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

The schema covers 60% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful defaults not present in the schema: muon, 3000 MeV/c, silicon, and 300 micrometres. It does not fully explain the kinetic-vs-momentum choice, but the schema already covers that alternative.

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 identifies the detector-signal quantities returned: electron-hole pairs, collected charge, energy deposit, and Landau FWHM. Combined with the title, an agent can tell this is a silicon/germanium detector response calculator, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit and no siblings are named.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as energy_loss or photon_attenuation. It gives defaults and physical assumptions, but no explicit selection guidance or exclusion conditions.

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