science.ideal_gas

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real substance beyond that: exact Decimal arithmetic with no rounding, the fixed CODATA 2018 value of R, and an explicit error condition for negative results or division by zero.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler: what it does, how to call it, what precision to expect, and what fails. The core contract is front-loaded, with the unit caveat correctly placed last.

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 output schema covers the return value, so the description only needs to specify units, precision, constant and failure modes — all present. Only the behavior for the wrong number of arguments (all four or fewer than three supplied) is left implicit rather than stated.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter names are bare, so the description carries the full burden — and does it. It assigns a unit to each of the four parameters (Pa, m³, mol, K), specifies the Decimal-string type, and states the 'exactly three, omit one' contract that the schema's all-optional shape cannot express.

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?

A specific verb (compute the missing variable) applied to a named, unambiguous resource (the ideal gas law PV = nRT). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as science.molar_mass or units.pressure_convert, since the tool solves for exactly one omitted variable.

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?

It gives a precise invocation rule: supply exactly three of the four variables as Decimal strings and omit the rest. It also warns that atm, L and Celsius must be converted to SI first, which prevents a common misuse. It stops short of naming the conversion siblings (units.pressure_convert, units.temperature) as the required pre-step.

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