engineering.pump_hydraulic_power

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the result is returned without rounding at 50 significant digits and that the efficiency branch changes the output set. It does not mention the implicit string-typed numeric inputs, but the extra disclosure is substantive.

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?

Three short sentences, formula front-loaded, followed by parameter semantics and the efficiency trap. No filler; each sentence adds information an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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, return values needn't be explained, and the unit/domain constraints are fully covered. The one omission is that all parameters are typed as strings in the schema while the description never says to pass numeric values as strings, a minor but real gap for correct invocation.

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% (only bare titles), so the description must compensate — and it does: it gives units for density (kg/m³), flow_rate (m³/s), head (m), the gravity default 9.80665, and, crucially, states efficiency must be a decimal fraction (0.8) not a percent (80). Every parameter carries meaning absent from the 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 the exact quantity computed with its formula (P = ρ·g·Q·H in W), and adds the optional second output (shaft power P/η). The formula and units make it unmistakably distinct from neighbors like engineering.torque_rotational_power or engineering.electrical_power 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?

Tells the agent that supplying efficiency switches on the shaft-power output, which is implied usage context. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling guidance, no note on when to omit efficiency (e.g. pump efficiency unknown), and no alternatives given.

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