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

Even with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns stored data, checks toolchain availability, provides an install command when needed, and never meshes, solves, or writes. These details go beyond the annotations and set accurate expectations.

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 front-loaded with the use case and communicates all essential behavior in three sentences. There is no filler; the rationale about choosing a grade against real material data earns its place.

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?

Given an output schema, strong annotations, and a single optional parameter, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to target a previous run, and what it will not do. An agent has enough information to decide when to call fea_summary instead of run_fea.

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% and the single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema: a directory from a previous run_fea, omittable for toolchain/material info. The prose restates this without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 identifies a specific purpose: retrieving the stored summary of a previous run_fea, toolchain availability, and material data. It distinguishes itself from run_fea by stating that it does not solve or mesh and only reads stored results.

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 opens with the exact condition 'Use this when you need a structural check's context without paying for a solve,' and explains that the same output_dir from a previous run_fea should be passed. It also explicitly lists what the tool never does, making the choice between fea_summary and run_fea clear.

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