calculate_radioisotope_production_yield

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add a genuinely useful caveat that the cross section is an illustrative assumption, warning the agent results are approximate. However, it discloses nothing about the calculation model's limitations, validity ranges, or units beyond what is implied.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words; the core action and reaction pathway are front-loaded and the caveat is correctly placed last.

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 values need not be explained. The description covers the reaction channel and one key assumption, which is sufficient for calling the tool, though it omits model scope/validity limits that a physics simulation would benefit from.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter meaning and the description must compensate. It only implicitly maps 'Ra-226 target' to target_mass_g and 'fast neutron flux' to neutron_flux_n_cm2_s, and clarifies nothing beyond the parameter names (e.g. no explicit units or valid ranges), so compensation is partial.

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 (estimates) and a precise resource (end-of-irradiation Ac-225 activity) and quantifies the pathway (Ra-226(n,2n)Ra-225 -> Ac-225 in a fast neutron flux). This is distinctly different from the sibling tools, which concern thermal/energy/thermal-hydraulic problems, so an agent can route unambiguously.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The reaction context implies its purpose, but the agent is left to infer that this is the tool for radionuclide yield estimates.

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