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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is redundant. The description does add real value with the 'can take minutes on big models (a job on the website)' runtime hint and the 'missing results are INCOMPLETE, never a pass' semantics, which are not in the annotations.

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 sentence order is well front-loaded: what it reads, then the return payload, then the correctness caveat, then the runtime warning. The lone 'Read-only' sentence duplicates the annotation and is the only wasted line in an otherwise dense, purposeful paragraph.

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 a 14-parameter, deeply nested tool with no output schema, it names the return contents (counts, worst elements with governing case/position, coverage, gaps) and flags the async job behaviour. The remaining gap is an explicit pointer to how runtime results are fetched, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 documents all 14 parameters including defaults and enums. The description reinforces the picture ('one orientation group', rotation to the reinforcement direction, preferred bars) but adds little syntax or default information the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 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?

States a concrete verb (reads plate forces, rotates, assesses) on a specific resource (RC slabs/shells, PLATEFORCEUL, one orientation group) and names the exact method set (Denton, Wood-Armer, sandwich, Annex LL, CS 455). This clearly separates it from siblings like cs455_assess, slab_capacities_from_bars and slab_survey.

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 points at slab_survey for case names and orientation indices, and explains that bars are the preferred input vs typed capacities, and that gaps are INCOMPLETE rather than a pass. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling assessment tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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