Gear Rating

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses the underlying model formula, the default allowable rule ('defaults to the material's fatigue endurance (else 0.3·UTS)'), the override behavior of allowable_bending_mpa, and the limitation that this is not a full AGMA analysis. It also enumerates the return fields, giving the agent a clear behavioral picture.

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 dense sentences, with the formula front-loaded, followed by inputs, outputs, and limitations. No filler; every clause contributes actionable information.

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 9-parameter engineering tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this text supplies the formula, output keys, default behavior, and model limitations. It leaves a few edge details implicit—such as explicit units and what happens if both tangential_force_n and power_w+pinion_speed_rpm are supplied—so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining the formula variables and explaining the key input alternatives: tangential_force_n vs power_w + pinion_speed_rpm, plus the allowable_bending_mpa override. However, a few parameters such as teeth, module_mm, and the input role of lewis_form_factor are only implicit.

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 spur-gear tooth bending (Lewis)') and reinforces it with the Lewis formula and pass/fail output, so an agent can tell this is a gear bending rating calculation. It does not explicitly name a sibling or alternative tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives concrete input-combination guidance: 'Pass tangential_force_n, or power_w + pinion_speed_rpm,' and states the model's boundary with 'First-order screen, not full AGMA.' It does not explicitly point to an alternative sibling tool, but the usage context is clear enough for selection.

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