Seal Check

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing exact formulas for squeeze and fill, the acceptance bands, and the full return object. This makes the calculation behavior transparent and predictable.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then gives formulas, acceptance criteria, and return fields in three dense sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 provides the return fields and calculation logic, which is vital because there is no output schema. It is incomplete on parameter semantics, particularly the W-to-cross-section mapping and the allowed application values, so an agent might struggle to invoke it correctly in less obvious cases.

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 must compensate, and it partially does by defining squeeze and fill formulas and referencing depth, width, and max_gland_fill_pct. However, 'W' is not explicitly mapped to cross_section_dia_mm, and the 'application' parameter's accepted values beyond static/dynamic are not explained.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Rate') and resource ('O-ring gland'), and explicitly names its paired sibling (oring_groove). This distinguishes it from the many nearby design and analysis tools.

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?

The phrase 'pairs with oring_groove' implies when this should be used—after defining a groove—and the static/dynamic bands give context for application types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative sizing/validation tools.

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