DCSb_Rayl

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the calculation, without mentioning side effects, permissions, or output format. It implies a read-only computation but does not confirm safety or non-destructiveness.

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 line for purpose followed by a clean list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, 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?

The description defines the tool's purpose and parameters adequately, but omits the output format (though output schema exists, it is not shown). For a calculation tool, additional context like precision or units of the result would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context for each parameter: atomic number Z (1-120), photon energy E in keV, and scattering angle theta in radians. This clarifies units and valid ranges beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 action: 'Calculate the differential Rayleigh scattering cross section' with units (barn/atom/sr). The tool name DCSb_Rayl aligns with this and distinguishes it from similar tools like DCS_Rayl.

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 like DCS_Rayl or DCS_Compt. The description only states what it does, not the context for choosing it.

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