Fatigue Check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value beyond annotations by documenting the S-N line construction, the infinite-life criterion, the explicit failure condition (tensile mean ≥ UTS fails outright), and the interpretation of `endurance_cycles` for non-ferrous materials.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the method (S-N Basquin + Goodman), follows with equations, then lists the return fields and concludes with material guidance. Every sentence carries technical value; a slight restructuring could separate the return-fields list for readability, but 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?

Input schema covers all 8 parameters and the description explains the core algorithm and key parameter semantics. The return behavior is documented via the output field list. Gaps include lack of explicit unit conventions and no mention of how `endurance_mpa` overrides interact with `material`, but for a fatigue-check tool the description is largely self-sufficient.

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. It explains the meaning of key parameters (`endurance_cycles`, `s1000_fraction`, `cycles`, `pass`, and the return fields). It does not explicitly document every input parameter (e.g., `material`, `uts_mpa`, `endurance_mpa`), but it establishes the relationships between many parameters well enough to infer their roles.

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 states a specific verb ('Rate fatigue life') and resource (S-N Basquin + Goodman mean-stress correction). It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by explaining its domain (fatigue) and core methodology, and the detailed equations make it unmistakable from other engineering checks.

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 provides clear context of when it applies (fatigue life assessment) and gives explicit guidance on non-ferrous alloys vs steel convention. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the material guidance effectively tells the agent how to adapt inputs for different material classes.

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