CS_Rayl_CP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does and lists parameters. It does not mention data source, accuracy, expected precision, or any side effects. For a physical calculation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 very short and to the point. It first states the purpose in one sentence, then lists parameters. Every sentence is necessary. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description is fairly complete for a simple calculation tool: it specifies input format and energy unit. However, it could mention that the compound is parsed using CompoundParser (since sibling tools exist) or that valid energies are positive. Still, the core is covered.

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% (no descriptions in schema), but the description adds meaning: compound is a chemical formula (examples given), E is in keV. This adds value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for missing parameter details (e.g., allowed compound formats, value range for E).

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 the Rayleigh scattering cross section of a compound with units (cm2/g). It includes the required parameters and their formats. This distinguishes it from similar tools like CS_Rayl (likely for elements) and CSb_Rayl_CP (coherent scattering).

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 lists the required parameters (compound, E) but does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like CS_Rayl or CS_Total_CP. There is no guidance on constraints or prerequisites (e.g., valid compound list). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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