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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that returned values are nominal and not authoritative, which is a critical caveat for a reference tool. It also implies a read-only, lookup behavior consistent with the verbs 'describe' and 'look up'. However, it doesn't specify response format or error behaviors for unrecognized names.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Describe... or look up'), and includes the essential caveat in the second sentence. No word is wasted.

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 lookup tool, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what it returns (nominal values), and its limitation. Without an output schema, the description partially covers return expectations, though it could mention the exact format (e.g., text vs. structured data) more explicitly.

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 schema description already fully covers the only parameter, name_or_slug, with examples for both connection types and bolt grades. The main description reiterates this dual-purpose but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly defines the tool's function: describing steel connection types (behaviour, use, failure modes) and looking up bolt grades. The verbs 'describe' and 'look up' are specific, the resource is distinct, and it differentiates from sibling tools (gauge, plate weight, shape weight) by resource type.

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?

It explicitly states the intended use ('for estimating and orientation') and the exclusion ('not design guidance'), which is a strong usage boundary. It doesn't name sibling tools, but the resource differences make the appropriate context clear.

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