CSb_Rayl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation and input constraints (Z 1-120, E in keV), but does not mention output format beyond 'barn/atom', data sources, precision, or error handling. 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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, then a two-line Args list. No unnecessary words, and the key information 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 (two numeric inputs) and the presence of an output schema (not visible), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context about the tool's place among siblings (bound vs free atom) and what the output represents in practical terms. For a calculation tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly defines Z as atomic number (1-120) and E as photon energy in keV, which adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only fields. However, it omits details like E's valid range or output format details.

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 an element, specifying output in barn/atom. The verb 'Calculate' and resource 'Rayleigh scattering cross section' are precise, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like CS_Rayl or CSb_Compt, which may have similar purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., CS_Rayl, CSb_Compt). The description focuses solely on parameters without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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