Spring Check

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

With readOnlyHint=true covering the non-mutating nature, the description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: default materials, the 700 MPa fallback, how allowable_shear_mpa replaces the estimate, and how shear_sf/pass scale accordingly. It does not specify error behavior for passing both force_n and deflection_mm, but this is a minor gap.

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 efficient, leading with the core formula and immediately following with the key input rule. The output list and fallback/override notes add length, but each sentence carries necessary 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?

For a 9-parameter engineering tool with no output schema, the description provides formulas, output keys, default behavior, and override semantics, which is strong. The remaining gaps—unexplained free_length_mm and the exact consequence of providing both force_n and deflection_mm—keep it from being fully complete.

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 property descriptions are absent, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping d, D, and Na through the formula and by explaining shear_modulus_mpa, allowable_shear_mpa, material, force_n, and deflection_mm. However, free_length_mm is never mentioned despite appearing in the schema and relating to slenderness/buckling outputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rate a helical compression spring (Wahl).' It names the exact calculation regime and key formulas, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from the many generic sibling check/estimation 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?

It gives clear usage constraints such as 'Pass force_n OR deflection_mm' and explains when overrides apply. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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