Bolted Joint Check

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

The annotations only indicate read-only and open-world hints, so the description carries the burden of explaining the calculation behavior. It provides the governing formula T=K*F*d, the source of tensile stress area and proof strength, the output fields, and the meaning of preload_target_pct with examples. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 dense but appropriately detailed for an engineering calculation tool, and it fronts the core purpose before input alternatives and outputs. Each clause adds useful information, though it is presented as one long block rather than structured sections.

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 names the full return set, explains input alternatives, and provides default behavior for preload_target_pct, which is valuable given no output schema. It is weaker in explaining how external_load_n and joint_stiffness_ratio influence the separation and loaded-stress outputs, and it does not define the exact pass criterion.

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 must compensate, and it does explain bolt_size, bolt_dia_mm, pitch_mm, property_class, torque_nm, preload_n, and preload_target_pct. However, several parameters such as external_load_n, joint_stiffness_ratio, material, proof_strength_mpa, and k_factor are not explicitly connected to their roles, leaving meaningful gaps for a 12-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool rates a bolted joint using VDI 2230-lite, with a specific verb and resource. It is unmistakably distinct from sibling engineering checks, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling alternative.

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 gives clear context for when this tool would apply and explains the alternative input paths: bolt_dia_mm+pitch_mm or bolt_size, and torque_nm or preload_n. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage is well implied.

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