calculate_pump_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computation formula and states the return unit (kW), adding transparency beyond the input schema. However, it omits behavioral details like error handling, unit assumptions, or any side effects (though as a calculator, side effects are unlikely).

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: two sentences plus a quick input/output list. It front-loads the core purpose and formula, with no wasted words. The mention of related calculators is tucked at the end appropriately.

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 is a physical calculation with a standard formula and an output schema (implied by 'Returns kW'), the description should fully cover usage. However, the incorrect mention of density as input and lack of explicit statement about output schema (beyond return unit) leaves gaps. The agent might assume a density parameter that doesn't exist, causing invocation errors.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the three parameters (flow_m3h, head_m, efficiency). The description lists 'fluid density' as an input, which is not present in the schema, creating inconsistency and potential confusion. This reduces its value; it would need to either match the schema or correctly reference the missing parameter.

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 pump power requirement using a specific formula (P=ρ·g·H·Q/η) and identifies the domain (fluid system design). It is a specific verb-resource pair, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_hydraulic_pressure or calculate_pipe_flow_rate that might also relate to fluid systems.

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 suggests use for fluid system design and directs to list_bundles for related 'science' calculators, implying a broader context. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool, nor does it name alternative tools for similar calculations.

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