Refractive_Index_Im

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Calculate,' which implies a read-like operation but does not disclose potential side effects, computational costs, authentication needs, or required data sources. The description fails to clarify behavioral traits.

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 and a structured Args list. Every element is necessary and there is no redundancy. It is well-suited for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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?

While the description specifies parameters adequately, it lacks information about output format, typical ranges for inputs, or domain constraints (e.g., valid energy range for the calculation). Given the tool's scientific nature and the presence of an output schema, more context would improve completeness, but it is minimally adequate.

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 lacks descriptions for all three parameters (coverage 0%), but the tool description compensates by providing meaningful explanations for each parameter: 'chemical formula', 'photon energy in keV', 'density in g/cm3'. This adds critical context beyond the 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 explicitly states the action 'Calculate' and the resource 'imaginary part of the refractive index of a compound.' The name and description clearly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'Refractive_Index_Re' which computes the real part.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., compound database availability), and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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