classify_corrosion_severity

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it makes clear this is a standards-based classification over two reactivity readings, implying a stateless computation, but it never states determinism, side-effect freedom, or that no external state is touched. It also does not disclose what the classification output looks like (e.g., severity class labels), which matters since no output schema exists.

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 identifies the action, scope, and standard with no filler. Every clause contributes identifying information.

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 two-parameter pure classification tool with fully documented inputs, the definition is nearly sufficient; the remaining gap is the absent note on what severity levels or return structure the caller receives, which is not covered by any output schema.

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%, with both parameters documented as Å/30 days, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the meaning by tying the two inputs to Copper and Silver reactivity under the ANSI standard, but adds no accepted ranges, units edge cases, or constraints beyond that.

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 verb ('Classifies'), a specific resource ('data center whitespace atmospheric corrosion severity'), the governing standard (ANSI/ISA-71.04-2013), and the two measured species (Copper and Silver reactivity). None of the siblings overlap with corrosion classification, so the tool is unambiguously identifiable.

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 domain ('data center whitespace atmospheric corrosion') and standard imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or routing to any alternative. An agent must infer applicability from the scope wording alone.

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