calculate_parametric_circuit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the implication that this is a pure equation solver, with nothing about determinism guarantees, input validation failures, or what happens on infeasible targets (e.g., no E96 solution).

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 with no filler; the enumerated computation types are the most useful content and appear immediately. Nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return values, yet it says nothing about what a solve returns (nearest E96 pair, computed junction temperature, R/C values, etc.). Schema coverage of the nested params object is strong, so the main gap is the missing result-shape hint.

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 schema itself enumerates the per-type argument names (v_in, v_out_target, cutoff_freq_hz, etc.), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no unit conventions, value ranges, or defaults beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ("Solve") plus a precise resource ("discrete parametric circuit equations") and enumerates the four supported calculation families, which map exactly to the type enum. It does not explicitly contrast itself with domain-adjacent siblings such as calculate_trace_impedance, but the listed subtypes are distinctive enough for an agent to tell it apart.

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 list of four calculation kinds implies when to reach for the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many calculate_* siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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