calculate_collapse_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm (regime determination from D/t and yield strength) and that grade is optional for reference, but does not disclose error handling, output format, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: a two-sentence overview followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Properly front-loaded with purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (API standard, regime logic) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential algorithm and parameters. It could mention return value structure, but completeness is high for a single-purpose calculator.

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 description compensates well. It lists all parameters in an 'Args' section with one-line descriptions (e.g., 'Casing outer diameter (inches)') and clarifies grade as optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 clearly states the tool calculates collapse pressure per API 5C3, specifying the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'collapse pressure rating'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing the specific API standard and regime determination.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_burst_pressure. It implicitly addresses usage through naming but lacks explicit when-to/not-to-use context or comparisons.

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