RadRate

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or error handling. The minimal description leaves many behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 with two short paragraphs. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter descriptions are succinct and informative, with 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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two inputs adequately. The output schema likely covers return format, so the description need not detail it further. The only minor gap is the lack of units or exact return type, but this is acceptable.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds essential meaning. It provides a valid range for Z (1-120) and examples for line (e.g., 'KL3_LINE', 'KA_LINE'), significantly improving usability over the bare schema.

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 'Get the radiative rate for a given fluorescence line', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like FluorYield or AugerRate by naming the exact quantity.

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 RadRate versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar tools, such as CS_FluorLine or FluorYield.

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