engineering.three_phase_power

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavioral context: input validity (>0, PF in [-1,1]), that connection is only validated with an identical formula, and the key limitation that Q is always ≥0 so leading/lagging cannot be distinguished.

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 with purpose then formulas, then constraints, then the caveat, every sentence carrying information with 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 values need no explanation, and the description covers inputs, formula, validation behavior, and the leading/lagging limitation — everything needed to invoke and interpret correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description fully compensates, documenting units and constraints for line_voltage (V, >0), line_current (A, >0), power_factor (Decimal string, [-1,1]), and connection (wye/delta, validation only).

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 (compute apparent/active/reactive power of a balanced three-phase circuit) and gives the exact formulas, so an agent can distinguish it from engineering.electrical_power and engineering.power_factor_correction 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 'balanced three-phase / line-to-line values' scoping makes clear when this applies versus single-phase power tools, but it never explicitly names an alternative or states when NOT to use it. Context is clear but no explicit routing.

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