calc_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It conveys that this is a non-mutating calculation and adds the hookless-rim-cap behavior, which is useful. Yet it does not describe return shape, possible failure cases, or assumptions about units for the numeric weights, so transparency is only partial.

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, dense sentences with every phrase contributing. The core calculation and the special hookless-rim behavior are front-loaded, and there is no redundant 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?

The description is adequate for a simple calculator: it names the core inputs and output units. However, one required parameter (bike_weight) is missing from the prose, there is no output schema, and no assumptions or error conditions are documented, so an agent could still make incorrect assumptions about required input format or result structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by enumerating surface values (DRY/WET/SNOW) and specifying pressure in bar, but it omits the required paraméter bike_weight entirely and gives no units for rider_weight or bike_weight. This is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states the action ('Calculate'), the resource ('tire pressure'), and the output unit ('bar'), which distinguishes it from generic names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_recommended_pressure, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'for a given bike, rider weight, and surface' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like get_recommended_pressure would be better. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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