bolted_joint_check

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discharges much of it: it discloses the computation path (T=K*F*d), the defaults, and enumerates the returned fields (preload_n, bolt_stress_mpa, pass, governing). It never explicitly states that the tool is a side-effect-free rating computation or notes any rate/auth limits.

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 purpose and method, then proceeds through inputs and returns. The semicolon-chained sentences are dense but each clause carries real information; nothing is filler.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description usefully enumerates returned fields, and it covers geometry sourcing, preload derivation, and the judgment basis. Minor gaps are the unexplained material, k_factor, and joint_stiffness_ratio parameters, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: bolt_size semantics with 'M8'/'M8x1.0' examples, property_class with the ISO 898-1 '8.8' example, torque/preload alternatives, and preload_target_pct are all explained with meaning. Gaps remain for k_factor, material, external_load_n, proof_strength_mpa, and joint_stiffness_ratio, which are not described.

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 verb ("Rate") and resource ("a bolted joint") and names the underlying method (VDI 2230-lite), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling strength/contact checks like hertz_contact or press_fit_stress without opening the schema.

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 conditional guidance for inputs: geometry via bolt_dia_mm (+pitch_mm) OR a standard bolt_size, preload via torque_nm OR preload_n, and explicit preload_target_pct values for reused vs critical permanent joints. It does not, however, state when to choose this tool over sibling checks.

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