engineering.bearing_life_l10

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the output unit (10⁶ rev), the exponent per bearing type, 30-significant-digit precision for 'roller', the same-force-unit and >0 input constraints, and that reliability/lubrication factors are deliberately omitted. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the formula and unit, followed by per-type exponent behavior, input constraints, and scope exclusions. No filler; every clause conveys information needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers output units, precision, input validity, scope exclusions, and the prerequisite tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% and all three parameters are bare strings, so the description must compensate: it supplies the meaningful enum values 'ball' (p=3) and 'roller' (p=10/3), and constrains dynamic_capacity/equivalent_load to same force units and >0. It does not state a concrete unit (N vs kN) or the string-number format, leaving a small gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (계산한다) and resource (구름 베어링 기본정격수명 L10) and gives the exact formula (C/P)^p with output units in 10⁶ rev. An agent can distinguish it from engineering.bearing_equivalent_load or engineering.sn_fatigue_life without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states a prerequisite ordering ('등가하중은 bearing_equivalent_load 로 먼저 구한다'), routing the agent to the sibling tool for P before calling this. Also excludes reliability and lubrication modifiers, implying those belong to other tools, though no when-not case for other life models is spelled out.

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