compute_iso_fit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — the tool is gated behind Kiln Pro — but never says what happens on a free tier (error, partial result, or upsell payload), and gives no information on the return shape, units, or whether the fit calculation still runs. The conditional 'would calculate' phrasing leaves the actual runtime behavior unclear.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence is speculative marketing and the third and fourth restate the same paywall point plus an upgrade URL. Two of four lines are sales copy rather than operational information, so the text is padded rather than efficient.

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 nine-parameter engineering calculation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the result (limits, tolerances, pass/fail gate outcome, units) and the gated behavior. It supplies neither, so an agent cannot predict what a successful call returns or how a failed gate is surfaced.

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?

Nine parameters at 67% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them — not nominal_mm, the hole/shaft class and grade pairs, material, printer_id, or the auto/brief mode. The one required parameter and the class/grade semantics that drive an ISO 286 fit are entirely undocumented outside the schema, so the description adds no meaning.

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 a specific domain (ISO 286 limits and fits) and mentions an FDM achievability gate, so the resource is identifiable. But it never states a clear verb or what the tool actually returns, and the conditional phrasing 'Kiln Pro would calculate...' makes it ambiguous whether this tool computes anything at all or merely reports a paywall. It also does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as tolerance_stack_analysis, recommend_running_clearance, or recommend_hole.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives in a large sibling set containing tolerance_stack_analysis, design_hole_for_product, recommend_hole, and recommend_running_clearance. The only condition given is a licensing prerequisite ('Requires Kiln Pro'), which is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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