bearing_life

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses ISO 281 and returns life in revolutions/hours, but it does not mention assumptions (e.g., how equivalent load is derived), side effects, or limitations. The lack of detail leaves the agent to infer behavior from the schema.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and standard. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to identifying the tool. For a complex tool it is brief, but it is not padded or redundant.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns and how inputs combine. It does state outputs in revolutions and hours, but it does not mention optional life margin, how loads are used, or the role of outputUnits. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description falls short of providing a complete mental model.

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 100%, with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific value—only the mention of 'revolutions and hours' loosely relates to the speedRpm parameter, but it does not enrich understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool computes ISO 281 basic rating life L10 for ball and roller bearings, with outputs in revolutions and hours. It is specific about the resource and the calculation, though it does not contrast with sibling tools like shaft_analysis or bolt_strength.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its role among sibling engineering calculation tools.

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