assess_drop_shock_reliability

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real substance beyond that: the methodology (F=ma inertial loading), the corner high-strain heuristic, stiffener-aware frequency estimation, and that it emits mitigation prescriptions (underfill, center-migration, boss-fastening). It does not describe the result structure, but it is an assessor with no output schema, so this is a solid contribution.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the standard and test condition, then enumerates computations and outputs in a logical order. Every clause carries information; it is packed rather than padded, though the density makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

For a 6-parameter analytical tool with no output schema, the description does well: it names the standard, the loading model, and the categories of output (flags, frequency estimate, mitigation prescriptions), which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gaps remain around result formatting and whether to supply the components array, but nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only light semantic context — that a border-ring stiffener affects the frequency model and that the standard drives the shock defaults — without elaborating on the components array fields or coordinate semantics beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (assess) plus the precise resource and standard: JEDEC JESD22-B111 board-level drop shock, with the exact test condition (1500 G / 0.5 ms half-sine, 30 drops). It enumerates the actual computations (inertial joint loads, corner-strain flagging, natural frequency, mitigations), making it clearly distinct from siblings like estimate_solder_joint_thermal_fatigue.

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 JEDEC reference and drop-shock framing imply the scenario (board-level drop qualification), but the description never says when to pick this versus related reliability tools such as estimate_solder_joint_thermal_fatigue or predict_assembly_mtbf, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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