calculate_ipc2221_clearance

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-open-world computation, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the governing standard and the fact it is a table lookup, but says nothing about the units or format of the computed clearance, which matters for a pure calculation tool with no output schema.

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 leads with the action and result ('Calculate minimum electrical clearance') and then qualifies with the standard and inputs. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the agent still does not know the unit or magnitude of the returned clearance (mils vs mm) or whether the result is a single value or a table, and there is no guidance on the voltage range covered by the table.

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 100%, and the description's enumeration of B1/B2/B4/A6 meanings is a verbatim duplication of the schema's own parameter descriptions. It adds no syntax, range, or tolerance guidance beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Calculate) and a precise resource (minimum electrical clearance / conductor spacing) and anchors it to a named standard and table (IPC-2221B Table 6-1). An agent knows exactly what comes out and on what basis, and can distinguish it from the creepage/CTI siblings.

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 implies the usage context by naming the two required inputs (peak voltage, conductor classification), but it never says when to prefer this over the related siblings, e.g. calculate_creepage_isolation_slot or evaluate_material_cti_creepage. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so usage must be inferred.

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