hertz_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that no solver is used, the half-space assumptions, the validity limit, the yield-based escalation condition, and the exact output fields including warnings, fidelity, band_pct, valid_range_ok, and escalate_to.

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, opening with the core purpose before adding formulas, validity, and return fields. Every sentence earns its place for a calculation tool with 9 parameters and no 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?

For a complex, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 9 parameters, this is complete: it explains the physics, parameter mapping, validity limits, escalation behavior, and all returned fields. Nothing critical for correct invocation is 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 compensate, and it does: it explains radius2_mm as a second sphere or negative conforming socket, body 2 defaulting to body 1, elastic sourcing from youngs#_gpa+poisson# or a Materials-DB material#, and the reduced modulus / effective radius formulas that tie parameters to the calculation.

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 calculation—Hertzian point-contact peak pressure—and explicitly distinguishes it as a no-solver screening twin of a frictional contact-pair solve. It also names the escalation path, fem_set_nonlinear_material, so the agent can differentiate it from solver-based siblings.

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 clear when-to-use context as a screening calculation and an explicit when-not-to-use boundary: valid while a ≪ R and p0 is below first sub-surface yield, past which the agent should escalate to the nonlinear FEM contact path. The alternative tool is named directly.

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