engineering.resistor_parallel

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context: 50-significant-digit Decimal arithmetic and the >0 / minimum-1-element constraints. It does not say what happens on a zero or malformed value (e.g., division-by-zero error), which is the one remaining 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?

Three tight sentences: method/formula first, then input contract and precision, then the misuse warning. No filler and the routing hint is at the end where it is easy to catch.

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 single-parameter computational tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies the formula, unit, numeric type, precision, and input validity rules. Nothing an agent needs 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%, but the description fully compensates: it specifies the parameter as a list of Decimal strings representing resistance in ohms, each strictly greater than 0, with at least one element. That is everything needed to construct a valid call.

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 (compute) and resource (parallel-connected combined resistance) and even gives the governing formula 1/R_total=Σ(1/Rᵢ). It explicitly names the sibling resistor_series as the wrong tool for the adjacent case, so an agent can disambiguate without opening any 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?

Contains an explicit misuse warning ('오용 주의: 직렬 연결에는 resistor_series 를 쓴다') that names the alternative and the condition selecting it. Input preconditions (>0 Ω, at least 1 element) are also stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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