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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it uses empirical formulas and a base of 380V three-phase, and mentions a cost of ¥0.05 per call. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects (none expected), rate limits, or output details, which is acceptable for a calculation tool.

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 concise, with each line defining a parameter compactly. The cost is noted upfront, and defaults are provided. Slight trade-off in structure: the description is a bullet list but not separated by newlines in the text, yet it remains scannable.

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 the tool has an output schema (unseen), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the essential parameters and their purposes, and the pricing is a useful contextual detail. It's complete for a calculation tool with a clear scope.

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 0%, so the description must define parameters. It explains type (cable, breaker, motor), power (kW required), voltage (default 380), and length (used for cable, default 50). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only defines types without choices.

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 title and description indicate a calculation tool for electrical selection (cable, breaker, motor) based on empirical formulas. The purpose is clear, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, though siblings are in different domains (e.g., bazi_quick, diagnose).

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 states the default voltage and length, and indicates that length is used for cable type. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but given the sibling domain differences, usage context is implied.

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