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

Annotations only say readOnly/openWorld; the description adds substantial behaviour: recursive envelope resolution to a deterministic single state, gating against MIDAS' own reported value, refusing rather than approximating, near-tie reporting, per-unit-length plate results, and that it executes asynchronously as a website job. These are real constraints an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and zero filler sentences. The middle sentences are extremely dense with nested parentheticals, which slows parsing, but nearly all content is substantive rather than redundant.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers semantics, workflow dependency, units and inline row limits well. The gap is that it says 'Runs as a job on the website' without explaining how to check or fetch the job result (e.g. job_status), which an agent must know to actually obtain output.

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 already 91%, yet the description still adds value: concrete set-syntax examples with ranges ('15to20', 'N12', 'EL12'), the note that a range keeps only existing ids, 'keyItem must be in the set', default units and the per-unit-length plate convention. It goes beyond the schema without re-documenting every field.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: find the load state making one key effect extreme at one key item, then report all items' results in that same state. It explicitly contrasts this with 'each item's own envelope', so an agent can distinguish it from envelope-style result tools. 'Step 2' and the reference to concurrent_forces_setup also position it in the workflow.

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 a clear precondition ('Call concurrent_forces_setup first for names and keyEffect ids') and use case ('the coexistent forces a bearing, pier cap or connection check needs'). It does not mention the sibling concurrent_forces_probe or say when to prefer it, so alternatives beyond setup are left implicit.

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