CS_Photo_CP

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

No annotations provided; description only states the calculation. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., valid compound format), error handling, or constraints (e.g., energy range or precision).

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?

Extremely concise: two lines of purpose and two bullet-like parameter explanations. No wasted words, highly scannable, and front-loaded with the main action.

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 an output schema exists, describing return is not needed. However, the description lacks completeness about edge cases, failure modes, or how this tool differs from similar cross-section calculators. It meets minimum viability but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains both parameters: compound as chemical formula with examples, E as photon energy in keV. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, enabling correct usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates photoionization cross section in units of cm2/g, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like CS_Photo or CS_Photo_Total, leaving the meaning of the '_CP' suffix unclear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar cross-section siblings (CS_Photo, CS_Photo_Total, CSb_Photo, etc.), the description should indicate context or selection criteria.

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