calculate_press_fit_hole_compliance

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

The annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it evaluates standard tolerances, estimates insertion and retention forces, and targets specific failure modes (inner-layer tear, vibration disconnects). It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Evaluate') and packs in standards, tolerances, and outcomes without filler. Slightly long but every clause contributes specific information.

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 calculation tool with three fully described parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies the key domain standards, tolerance ranges, and failure-prevention goals. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly mention the shape of the returned compliance result.

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%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by specifying the standard finished hole diameter range (0.94mm–1.09mm) and minimum copper plating thickness (≥25μm), which enriches interpretation of the corresponding schema parameters.

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 names the specific analysis (press-fit compliant pin finished hole diameter tolerances and copper barrel plating thickness), cites the governing standards (IPC-9797, IEC 60352-5), and states the computed outputs (insertion and retention forces to prevent inner-layer tear or vibration disconnects). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling calculation tools.

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 gives a clear technical context (automotive and industrial solderless press-fit applications) and purpose (preventing failures), which implies when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or specify when-not to use it, leaving the agent to infer its place among the many sibling calculation tools.

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