press_fit_stress

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it explains the linear-in-E assumption, that a missing modulus is an ERROR not an assumption, the three-state `pass` semantics, the null-pass-with-warning path, and the required `pass is True` test. These are non-obvious failure modes that an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loaded with the formulas and followed by the failure-mode rules; each sentence earns its place. The inline formula block is dense but appropriate for a calculation tool, though it slightly competes with the behavioral rules for attention.

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?

It enumerates the full return object, and covers the two hardest behaviors an agent must handle: the modulus-missing error and the three-state pass with warnings. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, this description supplies exactly the context needed to invoke and interpret 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, and it does for the critical parameters: interference_mm is declared diametral (a non-obvious unit/convention), youngs_modulus_mpa overrides the material card, and material sources E from the Materials-DB. It leaves shaft_dia, hub_outer_dia, engagement_length, and friction_coef to inference, but the unusual ones are covered.

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 (Rate), resource (interference/press/shrink fit), and the method (Lamé). It gives the governing formulas outright, leaving no ambiguity about what is computed, and there is no sibling in the list (fit_check, fit_class, hertz_contact) that does this same interference-fit rating.

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 implies usage via the material-modulus rule and the #269 error behavior, but never explicitly says when to choose this tool over fit_check/fit_class or how it relates to those siblings. The guidance is embedded in behavioral rules rather than a when/when-not statement.

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