auv_multibeam_survey_coverage

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.