engineering.gear_ratio

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the direction classification rule (reduction/overdrive/direct) and the precision policy of no rounding with 50 significant digits. It doesn't state error behavior for non-numeric or zero/negative input, which is the only notable gap.

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-loaded with the formula and result, then classification, then input constraints, then the multi-stage caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 two-parameter calculator with an output schema, the description covers formula, input domain, result classification, precision, and composition for multi-stage trains — enough to call it correctly. Only invalid-input behavior and explicit sibling differentiation are absent.

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 titles only), so the description must carry the load and largely does: it defines which parameter is numerator vs denominator via the formula, constrains both to numeric strings greater than zero, and notes that swapping them produces the reciprocal. It doesn't address format edge cases like leading zeros or whitespace.

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 (gear ratio of a simple gear pair) and gives the exact formula i = driven teeth / driver teeth, plus the direction classification. An agent can distinguish this from engineering.gear_torque_transmission without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the semantics of swapping arguments (reciprocal result) and explicitly tells the agent that multi-stage gear trains must be computed stage by stage and multiplied, which implies repeated invocation. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. gear_torque_transmission) for the torque case, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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