analyze_ionic_contamination

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description's value is domain behavior — and it delivers: it discloses the actual comparison thresholds (1.56 μg/cm², 1.20 Class 3), the per-species halide limits (chloride 0.70, bromide 0.54), and that risk is derived from bias voltage and conductor pitch. It does not describe the shape or scale of the returned risk score, which keeps it below a 5.

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 that opens with the verb and standards before enumerating outputs; every clause carries information. It is dense with parenthetical thresholds, which costs some readability but wastes no sentences.

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?

Covers a 6-parameter tool with a nested species object and no output schema well: inputs, standards, and computed judgments are all accounted for. The remaining gap is that without an output schema the description should say what the analysis returns (pass/fail, risk score range), which it leaves implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what the parameters actually feed — that bias_voltage_v and min_conductor_gap_mm drive the dendrite/CAF model, that target_class selects the applicable limit, and that species results are for halide carryover checks. It adds interpretive meaning rather than restating defaults.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (post-clean ionic contamination / ROSE + ion chromatography compliance analysis) and enumerates the three concrete things it produces: class-limit comparison, per-species halide flagging, and dendrite/CAF risk scoring. No sibling tool in the list touches contamination or cleanliness, and the IPC standard citations cement the domain uniquely.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing 'Post-clean ... compliance analyzer' and the standards cited, so an agent can infer it belongs after a cleaning step and before conformance sign-off. However, it never states when to prefer it, what prerequisites (ROSE measurement must already exist) are needed, or what to do when only species data is available without a ROSE reading.

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