evaluate_haleu_transport_cask_safety

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the three analysis domains it covers (decay heat, dose rates, criticality margins), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about the computational model, assumptions, validity limits, or that it is a non-mutating evaluation.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope. No filler, nothing to trim.

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, and the scope is stated. But for a two-parameter nuclear-safety evaluation with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the omission of parameter semantics and usage context leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 documents neither haleu_mass_kg nor enrichment_pct, and the description does not mention either parameter at all. Their names are self-descriptive, but units, valid ranges, and the meaning of the 250/19.75 defaults are left entirely to inference.

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 (Evaluates) with a precisely scoped resource (Type B transport cask decay heat dissipation, radiation dose rates, criticality safety margins) and a named domain (HALEU Category II SNM shipments). None of the siblings touch transport cask safety, so the agent can route here 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 says only what the tool computes, never when to choose it or what preconditions apply. There is no guidance on required inputs, shipment assumptions, or how it relates to the reactor/thermal siblings.

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