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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that values are 'published nominal' and not for design, which is a key behavioral caveat. It also specifies output modes (per-ft and optional piece weight). It does not disclose rounding or error handling, but the caveat is significant.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then alternatives and caveat. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers materials, output units, and usage limitations. Without an output schema, it still specifies what the result is ('lb/ft and optional piece weight'). Minor gap: it doesn't warn that dim2 is required for flat/tube, which might be inferred from schema. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all parameters. The description adds context about output units and the relationship between dimensions and section types, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. 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 names the exact resource ('round bar, square bar, flat bar or round tube'), the action ('Weight of'), and the output ('lb/ft and optional piece weight'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools for other shapes.

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 gives explicit alternative tool names ('For AISC designations use steel_shape_weight; for plate use steel_plate_weight') and clarifies the intended use case ('for estimating and orientation, not design guidance').

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