calculate_pipe_friction_loss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the computed outputs (pressure drop, velocity, Reynolds number, erosion thresholds), which implies a deterministic, side-effect-free calculation, but it never states that the call is read-only, nor does it disclose modeling assumptions such as coolant temperature, pipe roughness, or whether fittings/minor losses are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and computed quantities come first. It is arguably a little dense with four output quantities in one clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 deterministic four-parameter calculator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both the computation and the returned quantities, which is the main gap such tools usually have. The remaining shortfalls are assumption-related (fluid temperature, roughness, minor losses) rather than structural.

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 100% and both enums are documented with defaults, so the inputs are already well explained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, not even the unit conventions or the meaning of the erosion threshold relative to the selected pipe DN.

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?

Names a specific computation (Darcy-Weisbach pipe friction pressure drop) plus the additional derived quantities (velocity, Reynolds number, erosion thresholds) and the domain (data center liquid cooling loops). The sibling tools are all audit/verify/search/classify/lookup operations, so no distinguishing sentence is needed, but the description does not explicitly signal that this is the only compute tool in the set.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this fits hydraulic sizing/verification work, and it plausibly pairs with verify_hydraulic_boundary, but that relationship is never stated. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance.

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