fatigue_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it defines the calculation method, the pass/fail criterion, the tensile-mean failure condition, defaults for steel and aluminium, and the output fields returned. It discloses important edge cases like the absence of a true endurance knee for non-ferrous alloys.

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 and technical, but for an 8-parameter engineering calculation with no schema descriptions it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose and method. The equations earn their place, though the inline formula formatting slightly reduces readability compared with a more structured layout.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description provides the full context needed to invoke the tool correctly: required inputs, calculation basis, defaults, failure modes, and the complete output field list. Nothing essential for a correct call appears to be missing.

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 explain all eight parameters, and it does: stress_range_mpa via σ_a = stress_range/2, cycles via the pass condition, mean_stress_mpa via Goodman correction, uts_mpa/endurance_mpa/material via material-or-override sourcing, s1000_fraction via the S-N line start, and endurance_cycles via default and aluminium guidance. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rate fatigue life (S-N Basquin + Goodman mean-stress correction).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic analysis tools like fracture_check or creep_flag. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer differentiation from the method alone.

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 explains how the calculation works and when a result passes or fails, but it gives no guidance on when to select this tool instead of alternatives such as fracture_check, creep_flag, or other structural checks. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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