engineering.bernoulli

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the validity assumptions, the exactly-one-null solving convention, unit conventions for every quantity, and output precision (velocity to 30 digits, others unrounded). These are properties an agent cannot recover 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?

Four dense sentences: equation and task first, then the null convention, then units, then assumptions and exclusions, then precision. Every sentence carries non-redundant information and the ordering is front-loaded on the primary constraint.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description supplies units, assumptions, the solving constraint, and precision. What is slightly thin is failure behavior — what happens if zero or more than one state-2 field is null — and whether gravity can be overridden for non-Earth problems beyond the default.

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 carry the parameter meaning, and it does: Pa, m/s, m, kg/m³, and the default gravity of 9.80665 m/s². The one-omitted rule among the three state-2 fields is explained, but the description uses Korean labels rather than the exact property names, and gravity's role (standard vs. local) is only implied.

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?

It names the specific equation (P + ½ρv² + ρgz = const) and states exactly what it computes: solving for the single unknown in state 2. The domain boundary is also stated explicitly: it is not for pipes with pumps or friction losses. This clearly distinguishes it from the fluid-mechanics siblings (darcy_weisbach, hazen_williams_flow).

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?

Explicit when-not guidance is given: incompressible, inviscid, steady-flow assumption means it should not be used for lines with pumps or friction losses. The operational precondition — exactly one of pressure_2/velocity_2/elevation_2 must be omitted as None — is also stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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