DCSPb_Compt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a pure calculation without side effects, which is acceptable, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive. The output schema exists but the description does not hint at return structure or units beyond the parameter units.

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: one sentence for purpose plus a clean parameter list. No redundant information. Every part adds value.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks usage context and differentiation from many sibling tools. It is adequate for a simple calculation, but could be more complete with examples or links to related tools.

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 provides essential context: Z range (1-120), E in keV, theta and phi in radians. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, it could specify ranges for angles and note that all inputs are required.

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 it calculates the polarized differential Compton scattering cross section. The verb 'calculate' and specific resource name make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like DCS_Compt (unpolarized) and DCSP_Compt (possibly similar), though not explicitly.

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 the many sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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