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

No annotations provided. The description mentions calculating and displaying but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral traits such as resource consumption or mutation risks. This is a gap for a tool that may alter the view state.

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 concise but front-loads the core action well. However, it misses critical parameter information, reducing its efficiency. The example is helpful but could be placed better.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the output contains, or when to choose this over sibling tools. Significant gaps exist.

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 0%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (spec, range_, palette). The example shows a value for 'spec' but no format or allowed values. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Calculate and display') and the resource ('Coulombic electrostatic potential on the surface'), with aliases and an example. It distinguishes from siblings like 'show_surface' by specifying the electrostatic nature.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show_hydrophobicity_surface' or 'show_surface'. The example provides a basic invocation but no context on use cases or prerequisites.

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