DCS_Compt

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the calculation and parameter constraints but does not mention the return format, side effects, or any restrictions beyond parameter ranges. The existence of an output schema is unused in the description.

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 explaining the purpose plus a clear parameter list. No redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks any context about physical basis (e.g., Klein-Nishina), typical use cases, or how it relates to siblings. Still adequate for a straightforward calculation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: Z range 1-120, E in keV, theta in radians. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though more parameter details (e.g., valid ranges for E) could improve clarity.

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 differential Compton scattering cross section with units (cm2/g/sr), and the name distinguishes it from total Compton (CS_Compt) and other differentials (DCS_Rayl). It uses a specific verb and resource.

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, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states the calculation without context.

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