pump_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does describe computations and that it 'returns a summary', hinting at a read-only calculation. However, it never explicitly states that it does not modify network data or that it's non-destructive. It also doesn't mention any side effects or prerequisites beyond the network being validated, though it implies necessity. The lack of a clear 'this is a pure calculation' statement puts it below what a fully transparent description would provide.

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?

Three sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second adds detail on efficiency estimation, and the third provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core function and then adds context. No filler or redundancy. It's slightly longer than necessary but every sentence carries meaning.

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 no output schema, the description lists the major output types (hydraulic power, brake power, motor nameplate power, specific speed, NPSH, motor sizes) which gives a good idea of the return content. It doesn't specify the exact format or field names, but that's a minor gap for a sizing summary. It also mentions compatibility with EPANET entry, covering practical use. It's fairly complete for a tool without 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., flowUnits lists EPANET units, efficiency has range and meaning). The tool description adds minimal new semantic value — it restates that efficiency can be omitted for automatic estimation (already in schema) and mentions outputs tied to specific inputs, but doesn't enrich parameter meaning beyond schema. Since coverage is high, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Size a centrifugal pump' — a specific verb and resource. It enumerates outputs (power, specific speed, NPSH, motor sizes) and also states when it's used ('after pipe_sizing_wizard'), which distinguishes it from the pipe-related sibling tools. So an agent will immediately know what it does and how it fits with others.

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 explicitly says 'Use this after pipe_sizing_wizard' and mentions 'validated pipe network' — a clear prerequisite and sequencing instruction. It doesn't list alternatives because no other pump tool exists, but it tells the agent the right place in the workflow. That's explicit and unambiguous.

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