Shockley-Queisser limit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a detailed-balance calculation (not a device simulation), but says nothing about cost for up to 200 band gaps, whether one result per gap is returned, or temperature's effect on the limits.

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?

One compact sentence with the output quantities front-loaded and the input framing second. It wastes no words, though the phrase 'under a SCAPS spectrum' is slightly opaque compared to the schema's clearer AM1.5G default.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description names the computed quantities. However, for a tool that runs a SCAPS-based calculation alongside job/queue siblings, it omits whether the call is synchronous, how long many band gaps take, and how temperature factors in.

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 67%: spectrum and band_gaps_ev are documented in the schema, and the description only mirrors those concepts ('given band gaps', 'SCAPS spectrum'). The undocumented temperature_k parameter is not clarified by the description either, so this sits at the baseline for partial coverage.

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 (compute detailed-balance limits) and resource (Jsc, Voc, FF, efficiency for given band gaps), which is far more precise than the bare title. An agent can distinguish it from simulation siblings like scaps_simulate or scaps_optimize, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implicit use case (theoretical limiting efficiency for one or more band gaps) is inferable from the wording, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer scaps_simulate, and no prerequisites such as requiring a SCAPS spectrum file to exist.

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