calculate_technical_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return value composition (value with units, method, factors, code reference) but does not mention the required API key or any limitations. However, the description is sufficiently transparent for safe invocation.

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 concise (5-6 sentences) and well-structured: purpose, usage guidance, return value description, and examples. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-trade, multi-calculation type), the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, when to use it, what outputs to expect, and example inputs. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return format.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example input formats and listing supported trades, which aids the agent in formulating the 'calculation' parameter. This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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 explicitly states the tool performs numerical technical calculations for construction trades with code-compliant results, listing supported areas and providing example inputs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_compliance, which only checks compliance.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a specific measurement, size, rating, or capacity needs to be calculated — not just checked for compliance'), providing clear guidance on use vs. alternatives. This meets the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criteria.

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