engineering.elastic_modulus_relate

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

With readOnly/idempotent annotations already covering safety, the description still adds real behavioral context: input-count validation causing an error, validity ranges for each quantity, and 50-significant-digit precision with no rounding. It does not describe how the two computed values are returned, but an output schema exists.

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 purpose and formula come first, followed by constraints and then edge cases; every sentence carries a rule the caller needs. It is dense but not padded, appropriate for a parameterized physics relation.

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-optional-parameter calculation tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers select-two semantics, validity ranges, error behavior, precision, and material scope. Little an agent needs to call 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 four parameters are untyped strings with no descriptions, so the description must compensate — and it does, mapping each symbol (E, G, ν, K) to its parameter and imposing domain constraints (moduli > 0, −1 < ν < 0.5, consistent stress units). It does not explain why values are passed as strings for high-precision input, a small remaining 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?

The description names a specific computation (derive the two missing elastic constants from any two known ones) and gives the governing equations E = 2G(1+ν) = 3K(1−2ν). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like euler_buckling or bending_stress, which concern different mechanics quantities.

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 states the exact precondition (provide precisely two of E, G, ν, K), the failure condition (error otherwise), and an explicit exclusion: it cannot be used for anisotropic materials. An agent knows both when to call it and when not to.

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