engineering.bearing_equivalent_load

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

Annotations already state readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial non-annotated behavior: all inputs must be nonnegative, both loads being zero is an error, and coefficient lookup is not performed. This is valuable operational context beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the formula, then constraints, caveats, and downstream usage. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or 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?

For a four-parameter engineering calculation with no schema descriptions, the description covers the formula, input constraints, coefficient sourcing, zero-load case, and result usage. Units and expected numeric formatting are not addressed, which leaves a minor completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden well by mapping Fr, Fa, X, and Y to the formula and giving nonnegative and zero-handling constraints. It still omits units and does not explain the string-typed parameter representation.

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 states a specific calculation and names the exact formula P = X·Fr + Y·Fa, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes the scope by noting that coefficient selection via Fa/Fr vs e is not performed.

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?

It gives clear usage context: X and Y must be catalog values, coefficient selection is out of scope, and pure radial load requires axial_load and y_factor set to 0. It also points to bearing_life_l10 as the downstream use, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for coefficient selection.

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