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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the computed results (e.g., V/(1−p), Q/(1−p)) and mentioning the tool is free. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional context beyond the 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?

The description is concise (four sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating required vs. optional parameters.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits explanations of required parameters, return format, units, assumptions, and error handling. The listed outputs are helpful but not fully specified.

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 description explains the optional parameters p_pct, L_mH, and scc_MVA, but fails to mention the required parameters Q_kvar and tensao_kV. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for all parameters, but it leaves major gaps.

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 specifies the tool is for detuned capacitor bank (anti-resonance reactor) and lists the exact outputs: increased voltage, reactor current, effective reactive power, tuning frequency, and voltage class. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on capacitor bank detuning.

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 guidance on parameter usage: input either p_pct or L_mH, and optionally scc_MVA. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., power factor correction) or provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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