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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is exceptionally transparent: it discloses width normalization, duplicate fail-closed behavior, and a detailed list of non-actions such as no candidate selection, no external calls, no manufacturing verification, and no authority granting. This goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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 densely packed and front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds information. The long negative tail is justified because it prevents dangerous misuse, though the single-sentence structure makes it slightly harder to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 9 required parameters and conditional constraint logic, and the description does not explain how to choose or combine max_deflection_mm, allowable_stress_mpa, or model variants. An agent would struggle to construct a valid request from the description alone.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate, but it primarily explains the width array behavior and output concepts. It does not clarify the roles of load_n, span_mm, elastic_modulus_gpa, manufacturing_increment_mm, model choices, or the deflection/stress constraint alternatives.

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 ('Evaluate'), a precise resource ('rectangular beam sections'), and a clear output ('every proposal and the exact non-dominated frontier'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing multi-width exploration and explicitly ruling out candidate selection, so an agent can differentiate it from derive_rectangular_beam_section.

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?

The description clearly frames when to use the tool: when evaluating 2 to 12 caller-declared widths and needing the full non-dominated frontier. It also gives an implicit when-not by stating it never selects a candidate, assigns scores, or estimates costs, though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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