ISO 2768-1 General Tolerance

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

With no annotations, the description still makes clear this is a lookup/calculation returning a deviation, not a mutation or workflow action. It also discloses important domain behavior: the table varies by dimension kind and angular dimensions are keyed by the shorter side. It does not mention units or error behavior, but the output schema may cover return details.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the table distinctions, then the applicability rule. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

Given full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides enough domain context to call the tool correctly: what it returns, how the tables differ, and when general tolerances apply. Minor gaps remain around explicit sibling routing and unit expectations, but the essential call context is present.

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 schema already documents kind, nominal, and tolerance_class. The description reinforces the table distinctions and angular keying, but most of that meaning is already present in the schema rather than adding new syntax or edge-case guidance.

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 a specific verb and resource: returning the ISO 2768-1 general-tolerance deviation for one dimension. It clearly scopes the tool to unmarked dimensions, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as general_tolerance_complies or limits_of_size.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this for dimensions without an individual tolerance, and check for an individual tolerance first. It lacks explicit alternatives for cases where an individual tolerance exists or where compliance checking rather than deviation lookup is needed.

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