calculate_derating

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses error behavior ('Unsupported ranges are rejected'), interpolation behavior ('factors between rows use conservative lookup'), and default handling ('None uses the dataset's reference value'). It also flags a limitation of installation labels. Missing is any mention of auth needs or rate limits, but for a local calculation tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then supporting caveats in compact sentences. The final sentence about installation labels is slightly tangential but still earns its place as a usage caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves several parameters unexplained and gives no when-to-use context, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 compensate for all 5 parameters. It clarifies ambient_temp_c semantics (soil vs air, None default) and hints at installation_method limits, but says nothing about depth_m, insulation, or num_circuits. Partial compensation leaves clear 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?

States a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (model temperature, grouping and depth factors), which is distinguishable from siblings like calculate_voltage_drop or check_short_circuit. It is clear what the tool computes, though 'model temperature' is slightly awkward phrasing and 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 offers no when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as size_cable or calculate_voltage_drop. It only provides caveats about inputs and data limits, not selection context.

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