engineering.max_power_transfer

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable operational context beyond that: the Decimal-string input format, the r_th > 0 constraint, the return fields with units, and the efficiency caveat that guards against misapplication.

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?

It is four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and formula, then input format, return fields, and the misuse caveat. Every sentence adds information, though the formula may be redundant for an agent that only needs the invocation contract.

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?

Despite a rich context (output schema, annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description covers what the tool computes, both input formats and constraints, return field semantics, and a misuse caution. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does document both parameters: v_th in volts and r_th in ohms as Decimal strings, with the r_th > 0 domain constraint clearly stated, leaving little ambiguity about input format or valid range.

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?

It states a specific verb (구한다/compute) and resource (optimal load and maximum power) and pins the scope with the exact theorem and formula P_max=V_th²/(4R_th). This formula distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as engineering.electrical_power and engineering.thevenin_equivalent without needing to name them.

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 description gives a clear when-not-to-use warning: the 50% efficiency means this is not a load-selection criterion for power-supply design where efficiency matters. It lacks explicit positive when-to-use phrasing and doesn't name an alternative tool, but the scope is well understood from the named theorem.

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