Limits of Size for a Tolerance Class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it discloses output contents, units (millimetres), and that values are deviations from nominal, which is useful. It does not say what happens for a designation or size that is not in the standard tables, nor whether errors or empty results are returned — a meaningful gap for a lookup tool spanning ISO 286 tables.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value and its scope, followed by the notation rule and the usage boundary. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description supplies the notation rule and unit context an agent needs. It is only slightly incomplete on failure behavior for out-of-table sizes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema by explaining the case convention of the designation (uppercase hole, lowercase shaft) and confirming nominal is a size in millimetres that deviations reference. That is meaning an agent could not infer from the schema text alone.

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 and resource: returns upper/lower deviations and resulting limits for one tolerance class at one nominal size, with concrete examples (36H7, 36g6). The uppercase=hole / lowercase=shaft convention further pins down exactly what is being looked up, separating it from broader tools like fit or general_tolerance.

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 to interpret a toleranced dimension' gives a clear context, and the closing clause explicitly excludes judging joint suitability as an engineering decision rather than a tool output. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use for fit evaluation, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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