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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with 'Returns names only' and 'Free' (a cost signal), but says nothing about result volume or ordering, which matters for a list tool spanning dozens of families.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource list, then the usage imperative, then the return-shape caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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 no output schema, the description discloses that only names are returned and redirects to get_section for details, which is exactly the missing return-shape information. With one optional, fully documented parameter and full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating the concrete family prefixes (IPE, HEA, RHS, UB, W, HSS, etc.) that the 'family' filter accepts — meaning the schema itself does not carry. An agent can construct a valid filter value from the description alone.

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 and resource ('List the named steel sections FERS knows') and enumerates the exact families covered, so an agent knows precisely what the result set is. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_section, which returns properties rather than names.

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?

Gives an explicit directive: check_beam and create_beam require one of these names, so 'call this rather than guessing.' It also names the alternative (get_section) and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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