Heat Transfer Coefficient Estimate

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that this is 'NO solver', a 'focusing estimate, not a gate', with correlation-level fidelity and ±15–20% scatter. It also discloses the return payload and escalation behavior, giving the agent a realistic picture of the tool's limits.

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 but front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose and distinction, then systematically covers geometry, parameters, escalation, and return values. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the return-field list is justified because no output schema exists.

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 screening tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, this description covers the physical correlations, parameter semantics, built-in fluid properties, radiation option, fidelity, escalation path, and return shape. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 strongly: it explains geometry correlation selection, characteristic_mm meaning, natural vs forced velocity modes, required fluid properties for non-air fluids, and emissivity's radiation contribution. Only t_surface_c and t_ambient_c are left to self-evident naming, so a near-perfect but not exhaustive score is appropriate.

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: 'Screening convection coefficient h (NO solver)'. It explicitly differentiates itself from solver siblings like cht_channel_submit and thermal_transient_submit by framing itself as the 'honest h_conv to feed' those tools, making its role clear.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use as a screening estimate instead of a guess, and escalate to cht_channel_submit or thermal_transient_submit when the thermal margin is within ~2× band_pct. This names the alternatives and the condition that selects them.

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