engineering.electrical_ohm

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

Annotations already cover read-only, closed-world, and idempotent semantics, so the description focuses on what they don't say: domain constraints (current and resistance must be > 0, voltage >= 0 when supplied), the error condition on wrong input count, and that all three values come back. It doesn't discuss precision/rounding behavior for Decimal results, which leaves a small gap for a numeric tool.

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 core operation, then constraints, then the misuse warning, in four dense sentences with zero redundancy. Every sentence adds information the caller needs.

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 3-parameter arithmetic tool with an output schema (so return shape need not be re-explained), the description covers arity rules, units, domain constraints, error behavior, and sibling routing. Nothing needed 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%, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: it names all three parameters, gives units (V, A, Ω), requires Decimal strings, and states per-parameter domain constraints. It does not specify expected precision or significant digits of results, a minor 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?

States a specific verb and resource: solve Ohm's law V=IR for the single missing quantity, returning all three values. It names the exact parameters (voltage, current, resistance) and explicitly distinguishes itself from ac_impedance, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like electrical_power or resistor_series.

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?

Gives explicit arity rules (exactly 2 of 3 inputs, error on 1 or 3+) and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named: not for AC impedance, use ac_impedance instead. There is no ambiguity about when to call this tool versus its sibling.

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