Thermal Composite Wall

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses the exact governing formula with units, layer structure, optional convection coefficients, and the full return shape. It also states that every surface/interface temperature follows exactly and that no solver is used. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well organized: it front-loads the core calculation and 'NO solver', then gives layer/parameter syntax, the formula, and return keys. Every sentence adds useful information with minimal filler.

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 6-parameter calculation with no output schema, the description covers the core inputs, formula, and all returned fields. Minor omissions include explicit handling of null film coefficients, invalid material names, and area scaling behavior, but these are not severe for a closed-form calculator.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well: it explains layers as {thickness_mm, k | material}, gives units for k and film coefficients, and shows how t_in_c/t_out_c enter the formula. It does not explicitly explain how area_m2 scales q_w_m2 to q_w, nor how null h_in/h_out are treated, so it is not fully complete.

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 names a specific calculation: exact series thermal-resistance network of a plane composite wall, and explicitly says 'NO solver' and 'closed-form oracle.' This clearly distinguishes it from numerical/transient siblings such as thermal_transient_1d or fem_thermal_results.

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 provides clear context: use for steady-state overall-U and interface-temperature calculations for a plane wall, framed as a closed-form reference for the CHT family. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'NO solver' and 'exact/oracle' framing is enough for routing.

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