design_gear_size

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly discloses that results are preliminary and not a strength certification, and directs the agent to the result's limitations for what is not evaluated. This is useful transparency beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the limitation/qualification follows immediately. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 covers the tool's purpose and key limitation, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no input guidance beyond names, the description leaves the agent to infer several input requirements, making it only minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-specific meaning. Although some parameter names are self-explanatory (power_kw, pinion_speed_rpm), the description does not clarify expected units, value ranges, material formats, or the purpose of options_json. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Size a spur gear drive' and enumerates the covered aspects (ratio, teeth, module, forces, stresses, shaft, bearings). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling workflow tools, none of which perform gear sizing.

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 description provides clear usage context by stating this is 'Preliminary sizing evidence, not a strength certification,' which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and when it is not. It does not name explicit alternative tools, but the exclusion is meaningful and actionable.

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