engineering.stefan_boltzmann

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by warning that temperatures must be absolute Kelvin (feeding Celsius yields wrong results), that the result can be negative, and that output is returned at 50 significant digits without rounding. A 3 is fair because these notes are input/precision caveats rather than deep behavioral disclosure, and the pure-function nature is already implied by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded formula, then constants, then unit conventions, then the applicability caveat. Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information — no restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary; the description instead supplies the two things the schema lacks — absolute-temperature requirement and the 50-digit precision note — plus the physical regime in which the formula is valid. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 the load, and it does: emissivity constrained to [0, 1], area in m², both temperatures in K and strictly > 0. It does not mention that all four inputs arrive as strings, which is the one non-obvious schema fact left undocumented.

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?

Names the exact physical quantity (net radiative heat transfer between a gray-body surface and its surroundings), gives the closed-form equation Q = ε·σ·A·(T_s⁴ − T_surr⁴) with units in W, and pins the Stefan–Boltzmann constant. No sibling tool computes this, and the agent can identify the resource 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?

States the applicability condition explicitly — 'small surface enclosed by large surroundings' — and the sign convention when the surface is colder. It does not contrast with the nearby engineering.convective_heat_transfer or engineering.thermal_resistance tools, so the agent gets context but no exclusion routing.

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