generate_calculation_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the output is an ASCII report, optional checks are labelled passed/failed/not requested, and critically it 'does not certify standards compliance'. It still omits whether the call is purely read-only and how expensive/large the report is for a 24-parameter input.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with each sentence adding distinct information (what it produces, parameter lineage, output semantics plus limitation). No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 needn't be explained, but for a tool with 24 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the parameter contract almost entirely to an external tool reference. It is not complete enough for an agent to call confidently without inspecting size_cable.

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% across 24 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not — no parameter is explained or exemplified. The only mitigation is the pointer that parameters and assumptions 'match size_cable', which tells the agent where to look but not what any of the 24 fields mean here.

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 (generate) and a concrete artifact (ASCII report of inputs, assumptions and requested checks), which is clearly distinct from the sibling calculators. It further differentiates by noting its parameters and assumptions match size_cable, though it does not state how it relates to the other check_* siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but the note that parameters 'match size_cable' implies this is the companion reporting step after sizing, which is implied rather than stated guidance. No alternatives are named for producing results in another form.

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