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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does disclose the concrete return content (max torque, socket dimensions, compatible ROV classes). It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor any auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a pure spec lookup the behavioral surface is inherently thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the standard, the tool family, the class range, and the returned fields with zero filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it retrieves and the value domain. Omitting any routing guidance relative to the sibling torque tools is the only meaningful gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with all seven class examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the Class 1-7 range already present in the schema, adding no new syntax or constraint detail.

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 states a specific verb ('looks up') and resource ('authoritative API Spec 17D / ISO 13628-8 specifications for ROV rotary intervention torque tools'), plus the returned fields. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling subsea_bolting_torque_preload, which is adjacent enough that an agent could confuse the two.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as subsea_bolting_torque_preload. The lookup framing implies usage, but nothing tells the agent which torque-related tool to choose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the computed output metrics and their units, which gives the agent a picture of the result, but it omits any statement of assumptions, validity ranges for altitude/speed, or that this is a pure, side-effect-free calculation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (coverage rates, line spacing, carbon abatement comparison) carries information the agent needs to judge relevance.

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?

With a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool computes and the main output metrics. It stops short of stating modeling assumptions or limits (e.g., valid altitude/overlap ranges, or that carbon figures are estimates versus a DP2 baseline), which would matter for a physics/emissions calculator.

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 100%, so all four parameters (including defaults for speed, swath angle, overlap) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, units, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Calculates') and a precise resource ('AUV multibeam sonar bathymetric coverage rates, line spacing, carbon abatement metrics'), with the output units named (km2/hr, km2/day). The sibling tools are entirely different domains (torque, cathodic protection, bolting), so no sibling confusion arises.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternatives. Usage is implied by the framing ('versus conventional DP2 support vessels'), which signals a comparative survey-planning context, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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

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 discloses the evaluation criteria and the risk classes it reports (polarization adequacy, HISC), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about required reference electrode assumptions, handling of out-of-range or invalid potentials, or the shape/limits of the assessment returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the subject, the applicable standards, and the resulting assessment, with acronyms expanded inline. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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?

For a stateless evaluation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the standards basis and the two decision outputs an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing the assessment structure or edge-case behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (steel_type, water_temp_c, potential_mv_ag_agcl) are already documented with units, defaults, and example values. The description adds standards context but no additional parameter syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (evaluates) plus a precise resource (subsea structural steel cathodic protection potential measurements) and names the governing standards (DNV-RP-B401, NACE SP0176). It also states the outcome produced (polarization adequacy and HISC risk), so an agent knows exactly what this tool computes.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain framing: supply a measured potential and receive an adequacy/HISC assessment. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, though the sibling tools are in entirely different domains (torque, survey coverage) so no routing conflict exists.

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

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 does disclose the computation output units (ft-lbs and N.m) and the applicable codes, which is useful. However, it never states that this is a side-effect-free pure calculation, nor how it handles out-of-range inputs such as a target preload outside 30-75%, so the behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packing the operation, both output quantities, and the governing standards, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the parameters are covered, and the description names the outputs even though no output schema exists. But for a calculation tool that shares its domain with the sibling api17d_torque_tool_interface, the absence of any routing guidance or stated assumptions leaves an important contextual gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters (bolt material, diameter, target preload percent, lubrication condition) including defaults and ranges are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, unit, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Calculates') with a precise resource ('subsea bolted flange joint makeup torque' and 'bolt tensioner target preload'), plus the governing standards (ASME PCC-1, API 17D Appendix G). The only gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling api17d_torque_tool_interface, which appears to compute torque for the same code family, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a bolt diameter is mandatory), and no mention of the close sibling api17d_torque_tool_interface as an alternative. The standards reference implies a domain but does not tell the agent under which conditions this tool is preferred over the sibling.

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