evaluate_cathodic_protection

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.