api17d_torque_tool_interface

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.