calc_fits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context: it computes from standard formulas, returns specific outputs (deviations in µm, clearance, fit type), and advises verification against ISO 286-2 tables. No contradictions 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key constraints. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

Given the tool's engineering complexity, no output schema, and three parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool computes and returns, mentions the standard basis, and includes a verification caution. It covers essential context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains valid ranges for hole (H5–H11) and shaft letters (d e f g h js k m n p s) but does not detail default values or format. It provides some semantic context beyond the schema but is not comprehensive for all three parameters.

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 clearly states the tool computes ISO 286 limits and fits for hole-basis subset, specifying hole grades H5–H11, shaft letters, size range to 500 mm, and outputs deviations, clearance, and fit type. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc_beam or calc_fastener.

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 description implies usage for hole-basis fits but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions verifying critical fits against official tables, but no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of sibling tools.

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