engineering.resistor_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the computation is done in 50-significant-digit Decimal arithmetic, which tells the agent to expect high-precision output. It doesn't mention rounding of the returned value or unit normalization, so a small gap remains.

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, front-loaded with the formula, then the input constraint, then the misuse warning. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation isn't needed, and the description covers purpose, input constraints, precision, and the sibling distinction. An agent has everything required to call this correctly on the first try.

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 the parameter burden, and it does: 'resistors' holds Decimal strings of resistance values in ohms, each must be greater than 0, and at least one item is required. What's missing is whether mixed units or zero-length strings are rejected, but the core semantics are supplied.

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 and resource ('직렬 연결 저항의 합성 저항') and gives the exact formula R_total=ΣRᵢ, so the computation is unambiguous. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling engineering.resistor_parallel, so an agent can pick it over its nearest neighbor without opening the 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?

The last sentence is an explicit misuse warning that names the alternative tool ('병렬 연결에는 resistor_parallel 을 쓴다'), giving the agent a clear when-not condition. This is exactly the routing guidance that distinguishes the two resistor-combination tools.

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