evaluate_material_cti_creepage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that it computes safety margins and recommends high-CTI laminates, which is useful output context, but it says nothing about edge cases, invalid-input handling, or how the recommendation is derived. Adds some value without rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, and every clause (standards, material groups, output actions) contributes. It is a single dense run-on sentence, which slightly hurts scanability but does not waste words.

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 read-only calculation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the standards basis, input dimensions, and the shape of the result (safety margins, laminate recommendations), so an agent knows what comes back. Minor gaps remain around the exact return fields and how it differs from the overlapping clearance sibling.

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 every parameter (including defaults) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does add interpretive meaning for substrate_cti_v by mapping Group I to >=600V and enumerating Pollution Degrees 1/2/3, but it restates most of what the schema already carries.

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 (Evaluate) and a well-defined resource: substrate CTI Material Group plus required safety creepage, tied to named standards (IEC 62368-1 Table 25, IPC-2221B). The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from a generic clearance calculator, but it never names the closely related siblings (calculate_ipc2221_clearance, calculate_creepage_isolation_slot), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 domain and standards are given, which implies usage (sizing creepage from a substrate's CTI rating), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives. Given heavy overlap with calculate_ipc2221_clearance in the sibling list, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap.

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