valve_cv_liquid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing assumptions. It states the calculation basis (ISA 75.01, turbulent liquid, Fp=1) and the optional choking check, plus a practical hint for water (critical_pressure_bar_a = 220.64). This is strong for a non-destructive calculation tool, though it does not describe the exact output behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It is not padded or redundant, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the calculation scope, flow regime, Fp assumption, and the optional pressure parameters for choking. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'fl' parameter, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

The description adds meaning to the optional pressure parameters (inlet/vapor/critical) by explaining their role in the choked-flow check, and provides a concrete example value for water. However, it does not explain the 'fl' parameter (default 0.9) or the exact expected units/format for the core parameters. With 0% schema coverage, partial compensation is achieved.

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 ISA 75.01 required Cv/Kv for turbulent liquid flow, which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from pump, pipe, and fluid property tools. The mention of Fp=1 further narrows its scope.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (turbulent liquid flow, Fp=1) and specific guidance for optional parameters to enable the choked-flow check. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling tool names make the domain obvious.

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