engineering.norton_equivalent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain constraints (r_th > 0, Decimal-string inputs) and states the returned fields i_n and r_n, though it does not detail precision, rounding, or invalid-input behavior.

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 short sentences are front-loaded with the transformation and formulas. Units, constraints, return fields, and the sibling warning each add actionable information rather than repeating structured fields.

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 pure calculation with annotations and an output schema, the definition covers inputs, formula, outputs, and an alternative route. Nothing required 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents v_th in volts and r_th in ohms with a >0 constraint and Decimal-string format for both parameters, fully compensating for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

The first sentence names the specific transformation and resources: converting a Thevenin equivalent (V_th, R_th) into a Norton equivalent. The formulas I_N=V_th/R_th and R_N=R_th make the operation unambiguous, and the closing note distinguishes it from engineering.thevenin_equivalent.

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?

It states the conversion use case and gives an explicit when-not: if starting from open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current, use thevenin_equivalent first. The alternative sibling is named with the condition that selects it, leaving little to inference.

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