Check ISO 286 Class Applicability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the most important trait: "omitted intervals are not inferred," so absence-of-data means unsupported rather than unknown. It does not state read-only/no-side-effects explicitly, though "List" implies it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the usage precondition and the critical interpretation caveat. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers invocation scope plus the key interpretation rule. It would be fully complete with an explicit statement that the lookup is side-effect free and of what to do when an interval is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it fully, including the same examples (H7, j5, N9). The description adds only the mild clarification that a single class is evaluated per call, which warrants the baseline rather than a higher score.

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 ("List") and a precisely scoped resource ("the exact nominal-size intervals where one ISO 286 tolerance class is supported"), with concrete examples of valid class notation. The one-class-per-call scope distinguishes it from the broader siblings fit/limits_of_size, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use this before relying on a class across a size range" gives a clear precondition for invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. limits_of_size) for when the class turns out to be unsupported, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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