Creep Risk Flag

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it uses the Materials DB or an override, computes margin and pass based on service temperature, and returns a structured result. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the screening nature and pass logic, though the role of stress_mpa in the outcome is not fully explained.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core screening action, the pass rule, and the full return shape are front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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, listing the returned fields is valuable and done well. The description covers the source of service temperature, the override mechanism, and the pass criterion. The main gap is the unexplained role of stress_mpa, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 carries the burden. It clarifies temp_c as operating temperature, material is looked up in the Materials DB, and max_service_temp_c acts as an override. However, the required stress_mpa parameter appears only in the return tuple and its influence on the creep check is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Screen for creep risk') and names the resource and criterion ('compare operating temperature to the material's max service temperature'). It also differentiates itself from a life model ('A screen, not a Larson-Miller life model') and states the pass definition, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: when a simple creep screen is needed rather than a Larson-Miller life model. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the 'not a life model' exclusion gives enough context to route an agent away from more detailed analysis.

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