science.nernst

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond them: output unit (V), the exact constants R=8.314462618 and F=96485.33212, and 20-decimal rounding. It does not describe failure behavior for invalid Q, but the precision and unit disclosures are real added value.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what it computes and the formula, then input conventions, constants, and the two common misuse warnings. 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?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be explained; the description covers units, precision, constants, and all input formats. Nothing needed to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: e0 as a Decimal string in volts, reaction_q as a positive Decimal string (explicitly Q, not ln(Q)), n as a positive integer electron count, and temperature in Kelvin defaulting to 298.15. All four parameters gain meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 ('Nernst 방정식으로 ... 전극 전위를 V 단위로 계산한다') and includes the governing equation E = E0 - (RT/nF)*ln(Q), which unambiguously identifies the operation among science.* and engineering.* siblings. An agent can distinguish it from faraday_electrolysis or battery_capacity without reading 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?

Frames the use case as '비표준 조건' (non-standard conditions) and gives explicit negative guidance: don't pass Celsius directly, don't pass ln(Q) instead of Q. It does not name a sibling alternative or state prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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