Percent w/v solution

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that results are for laboratory calculations only (i.e., not clinical/dosing use) and that this is a pure formula, but says nothing about output format or precision.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the formula—the single most useful piece of information—is front-loaded, followed by the scope caveat. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter pure calculator with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece—what the result is (grams of solute) and how it is derived. Only minor gaps remain, such as output rounding or unit conventions.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by spelling out the computation g = percent x mL / 100, which clarifies the role each parameter plays. It does not restate the >0 / ≤100 bounds, but those are already in the schema.

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 the exact quantity produced ("grams of solute for a percent weight per volume solution") and even gives the formula, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as molarity or reconstitution_concentration, which an agent must infer from the units alone.

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?

"For laboratory calculations only" is a scope disclaimer, not usage guidance; it never says when to pick this over molarity, dilution_c1v1, or reconstitution_concentration. The applicable scenario is only implied by the w/v formula.

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