specific_gravity

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Archimedean method and that alloy matching occurs, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g., submerged weight ≥ dry weight), precision/rounded output, or what the alloy result actually contains. A calculator tool with an inference step needs more disclosure than this.

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. Minor deduction because the phrase 'displacement volume' implies a parameter that doesn't exist, which could momentarily mislead an agent scanning the inputs.

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 computational tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (SG value, matched alloy set, confidence) and how invalid inputs behave. It hints at alloy output but leaves the return shape and edge-case behavior unspecified.

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 parameters already document units ('grams') and meaning, so the description correctly relies on the schema. It adds no further meaning such as expected ranges or the physical constraint linking the two weights, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Compute Archimedean specific gravity') and enumerates the derivation chain (dry and submerged weights → displacement volume → alloy identification). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bullion_melt and watch_beat_math, though the mention of 'displacement volume' as an input-ish noun is slightly ambiguous since no volume parameter exists.

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 implied use case is clear: you have weight_air and weight_water and want SG plus an alloy guess. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no note that weight_water must be less than weight_air for a valid result, and no statement about whether the alloy matching is optional or unconditional.

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