engineering.convective_heat_transfer

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses the sign convention (positive when surface is hotter than fluid, negative when colder) and the precision behavior (no rounding, 50 significant digits). This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not 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?

Front-loads the formula and unit, then packs units, sign convention, the h-is-input constraint, and precision into a few short sentences with no waste.

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, the description need not explain the return value; it still covers units, sign, precision, and the key modeling caveat about h, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% (all four params are bare strings), so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies units for heat_transfer_coefficient (W/(m²·K)), area (m²), and both temperatures (K or °C, only the difference used). What it does not do is explicitly map T_s/T_∞ to the temperature_surface/temperature_fluid keys, but the names make that inference safe.

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 the exact physical law (Newton's cooling), the formula Q = h·A·(T_s − T_∞), and the output unit (W), so the agent knows precisely what is computed. It also distinguishes itself from the related heat-transfer siblings (fourier_heat_conduction, thermal_resistance, lmtd) by naming the convection law rather than conduction/resistance.

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 clause 'h is an input value and is not derived from flow conditions' is a genuine usage constraint that tells the agent not to expect the tool to compute h from Reynolds/flow data. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative and no explicit when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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