Spr get results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the calculation dependency, what the inverse 'REQUIRED SOURCE PRESSURE' means, defaults (40 rows, governing scenario), and the breadth of returned diagnostics (flow, margin, governing nozzle, pump check, warnings). It does not mention error behavior when no calc exists, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded in the first clause, and the following clauses enumerate return content that would otherwise be undocumented (there is no output schema), so the length is largely earned. The heavy run-on comma/pipe stacking ('detail = lines (table by line number) | zones | nozzles | pipes...') is dense and slightly hard to parse, and the trailing bulc-rules pointer is boilerplate.

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?

For a complex design-results tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description carries the return-value burden well: it names the scenarios, the two evaluation points, the per-scenario metrics, and the classic totals. Only the precise shape/nesting of the returned tables and failure behavior when the calc has not been run are left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks — it explains that 'lines' is a table by line number, that the detail table is for one scenario (default governing) at supply or design point, and that scenario accepts 'all' or 'zone:<zone>'. This is real semantic enrichment beyond the enum values themselves.

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 ('Get sprinkler / water-spray results') and immediately names the prerequisite 'run spr_run_calc first', which separates it from the many spr_* setup/mutation siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close read-side siblings like spr_list_summary or spr_export_results, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(run spr_run_calc first)' gives the one essential precondition, and the detail/scenario/at parameters imply post-calculation inspection contexts. However, it never says when to choose this over spr_list_summary (summary view) or spr_export_results (persisting results), leaving the selection guidance to inference.

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