bearing_life

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains the ISO 281 model, the two-path C sourcing, that catalog lookup additionally reports bore/OD/width, C0 and static safety factor, and how the 'pass' field is evaluated against target_hours. It does not explicitly state side-effect/auth profile, but for a pure computation tool that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and formulas, then the return shape; every sentence earns its place with no filler. It is dense and formula-packed, which is warranted for a 6-parameter engineering tool but slightly reduces readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields ({l10_million_rev, l10_hours, load_ratio, dynamic_load_c_n, exponent, pass, ...}) and the pass logic, and covers most of the 6 params. It is nearly complete for a stateless calculation tool, missing only explicit units and edge-case precedence rules.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping dynamic_load_c_n to C, designation to the catalog lookup with an example, target_hours to the pass condition, and implicitly P and n through the formulas, plus 'p=3 ball, 10/3 roller' for the kind parameter. It does not spell out the roller value or precedence when both designation and dynamic_load_c_n are given, keeping it just below full marks.

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 computation (basic rating life L10 per ISO 281) with the governing formulas, making the tool's job unambiguous. The topic is clearly distinct from siblings like gear_rating, spring_check, or fatigue_check. An agent can tell immediately what this tool produces.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation: supply C directly as dynamic_load_c_n, or pull it from the deep-groove ball catalog via designation (with an example and the extra data returned). It does not name alternative sibling tools to prefer or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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