h_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the correlation-based fidelity, literature scatter of ±15–20%, valid_range_ok warnings, built-in air properties, explicit property requirements for other fluids, and radiation inclusion via emissivity. It also states the return fields and escalation target.

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 front-loaded and dense with useful detail, with every major sentence contributing selection, parameter, or output information. It is somewhat long due to the return-field list and parenthetical qualifications, but the length is justified by the tool's 11 parameters and lack of schema descriptions.

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, 11 parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the missing context: purpose, parameter semantics, return fields, accuracy limitations, and escalation path. An agent has enough information to select and 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 must compensate. It explains geometry choices and correlation mapping, characteristic_mm meaning, velocity-based natural/forced mode, required fluid properties, and emissivity effects; however, it does not explicitly clarify t_ambient_c or t_surface_c semantics beyond their self-explanatory names.

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 precise purpose: screening convection coefficient h, explicitly NO solver, and distinguishes it from downstream thermal tools. It names thermal_lumped, thermal_transient_1d, and convection BC usage, making the resource and scope 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?

It explicitly says this is a focusing estimate, not a gate, and gives the escalation condition: move to cht_channel_submit or a meshed convection BC when the thermal margin is within ~2× band_pct. It also explains how geometry and velocity determine the correlation, which is essential selection guidance.

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