engineering.moment_of_inertia

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds domain-specific behavior that the annotations do not: units (kg, m), a strictly-positive input constraint, and 'no rounding' on the result. It does not say what validation failures or null radius/length for irrelevant shapes do.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler: purpose and output unit first, then the shape-to-parameter mapping with formulas, then unit/constraint rules, then the axis caveat. Every sentence carries information the agent needs, and none repeat the schema or the annotations.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, shape domain, units, constraints, and the axis limitation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly in one shot 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of documenting all 4 parameters, and it does: shape with the five accepted values plus their formulas, radius and length with their shape-conditional requirement, and mass/dimension units and the >0 constraint. Without this text, the agent would have no way to know the string 'shape' domain at all.

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?

A specific verb plus resource (mass moment of inertia, kg·m²) with the exact formula and the set of supported shapes. This fully resolves the ambiguity against the sibling tool engineering.section_moment_inertia (area moment), because the tool is explicitly defined as a mass moment and the allowable values are enumerated.

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 states which shapes need radius and which need length, which is the operative when-to-use rule for this tool. It also states the axis convention for rods and points the agent to the parallel axis theorem when another axis is used. It never names a sibling tool or an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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