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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details how parameters affect results (e.g., X/R ratios govern peak and asymmetry, grounding type affects phase-earth current, cable inclusion reduces fault current). It also notes the tool is free with limited use, adding behavioral context.

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 a single, dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then logically sequences parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and key parameters. It lacks explanation of return values or full parameter coverage, but provides enough for an agent to use correctly. The readOnlyHint annotation compensates for safety context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining key parameters like network specification, transformer, X/R ratios, grounding, and cable. However, not all 17 parameters are covered (e.g., `cabo_material`, `cabo_num_condutores`, `api_key` are omitted). Still, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool calculates short-circuit currents per IEC 60909, specifying types (Icc 3φ/2φ/phase-earth), X/R, and peak current. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which involve different electrical calculations (e.g., cable sizing, transformer damage).

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 provides usage guidance on how to specify parameters (e.g., use `potencia_curto_mva` or `icc_rede_kA`) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Context from sibling tools implies distinct purposes, but no direct guidance.

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