science.intensity

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and closed-world; beyond that, the description specifies unit expectations, Decimal-string inputs, non-negative power, positive area, no rounding, and prohibited cm² input. That is behaviorally useful and consistent with 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?

Four short sentences, starting with the calculation/formula and then constraints; no redundant restatement of the tool name. Every sentence adds scope, formula, or input/output semantics.

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 and the description still states the result unit and no-rounding behavior; it covers both required inputs and key invalid-use cases. Nothing material is missing for a read-only two-parameter calculator.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: power_w in watts >= 0 and area_m2 in positive square meters, plus the cm² exclusion. It adds material meaning beyond the bare string properties.

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?

The description names a specific verb (계산한다) and resource (빛이나 복사의 세기), gives the exact formula I = P / A, and narrows scope by excluding incidence-angle correction and spectral intensity. An agent can distinguish this from other science calculators 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?

It gives clear negative guidance (not for effective area by incidence angle, not spectral intensity, not cm² input) but does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead. The intended use is strongly implied by the formula and unit constraints, but there is no explicit when-to-use/alternative routing.

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