engineering.fourier_heat_conduction

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: a validation error when T_hot < T_cold, acceptance of K or °C because only differences matter, and no intermediate rounding with 50 significant digits of precision. That is a meaningful supplement for a pure calculator.

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 units, then tacks on error handling, multilayer routing, and precision. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the mix of formula, units, and constraints in one block makes it slightly run-on.

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 return values, and it covers formula, units, error behavior, precision, and the composite-wall workflow. Nothing essential to calling it correctly appears 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% (bare string titles), so the description must carry the burden and it does: units for thermal_conductivity W/(m·K), area m², thickness m, and the temperature convention (K or °C, difference only) plus the hot/cold ordering constraint. This compensates fully for the empty schema.

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 computation with the exact governing equation Q = k·A·(T_hot − T_cold)/L, distinguishing it from generic heat tools. It does not explicitly say how it differs from close siblings like engineering.convective_heat_transfer or engineering.lmtd, though it does point to engineering.thermal_resistance for the multilayer case.

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 concrete routing advice: multilayer walls should build L/(kA) per layer and combine via the thermal_resistance tool, and reversed temperatures must be fixed by swapping arguments rather than calling this. No exclusion against the convective/LMTD siblings, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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