calculate_dilution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the pure computation behavior: given three inputs, return the fourth. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., division by zero, unit consistency) but for a simple calculator this is acceptable. The description is honest and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effect.

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 extremely concise – four short sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage context, input/output format, and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (formula and solving behavior) is front-loaded.

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 simplicity, complete schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how inputs work, and where to find related tools. No critical gaps are present.

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?

While the schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (100% coverage), the description adds critical usage semantics: exactly three of the four parameters must be provided. This is not apparent from the schema (which lists all as optional). The description also groups the parameters under the formula, reinforcing their meaning.

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 computes dilution using the formula C1·V1=C2·V2 and solves for any unknown. It explicitly mentions use cases (chemistry, lab work, pharmacy) and distinguishes itself from numerous sibling tools by naming the specific formula and domain.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (chemistry, lab work, pharmacy) and instructs on how to provide inputs ('any 3 of C1, V1, C2, V2'). It also references list_bundles for related science calculators, hinting at alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or detailed exclusion criteria.

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