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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description focuses on domain-specific traits: data provenance, the distinction from H*(10), lack of build-up factor, and isotope-specific branching details. This adds substantial value beyond structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core computation, followed by essential caveats. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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?

Given high schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers computational basis, limitations, and isotope specifics well. It does not explicitly state the return value (e.g., units of air-kerma rate), leaving a minor gap for a computation 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 coverage is 86%, so parameters are well-documented. The description mentions optional shielding and inverse-square application, but does not add much parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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 ('Compute') and a precise resource ('point-source air-kerma rate constant') with details on data sources (NNDC, NIST, LNHB). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like photon_attenuation or radioactive_decay, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other radiation calculation tools). No when-not conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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