creep_flag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the data source (Materials DB or override), the classification semantics (pass = below the service limit), and enumerates the returned fields. It omits any note on permissions, determinism, or what happens when the material is absent from the DB.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, scope boundary second, contract third. The return-field list is dense but functional and nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool computes, the pass semantics, and the response shape. The remaining gap is that stress_mpa's influence on the result and the override precedence are only inferable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps temp_c to 'operating temperature', the material argument to a Materials DB lookup, and max_service_temp_c to the explicit override. Only stress_mpa's role is left unclear (it appears only in the return list), and the Steel-1045 default is not mentioned.

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 and resource — screen for creep risk — and explicitly defines the mechanism (compare operating temp to max service temperature) plus the pass criterion. It also draws a boundary against a more rigorous approach ('not a Larson-Miller life model'), which distinguishes it from analysis siblings.

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?

It signals the intended usage tier ('A screen, not a Larson-Miller life model'), which implies when it is appropriate versus a full life model. However, it names no actual sibling tool as an alternative and gives no conditions such as when an override should be supplied instead of the Materials DB lookup.

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