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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: limits are opt-in, no limit yields NO LIMIT APPLIED, unevaluated states yield INCOMPLETE, combination categories are guessed and reported, and every state is matched to CIVIL NX. It even explains composite-part fck handling and stage-specific behaviour.

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 and compressed into a few dense sentences; almost every clause earns its place. The single long opening sentence and all-caps emphasis make it slightly harder to scan, but it is not padded.

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 tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description explains the return payload in detail: verdict, limits used, counts, governing state, failures, unevaluated items and reasons, per combination/stage and per element, plus the CSV download link. It also covers the key edge-case outcomes, leaving little an agent needs to infer.

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 91%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful conceptual meaning: limits are opt-in exactly as in the plugin, stage checks use fck(t) from concrete age and tendon stresses from CIVIL NX, and combination categories are taken as given or guessed. It does not document each parameter individually, but it meaningfully frames the nested limits and stageLimits objects.

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 check: the Stress Profile Generator's SLS report check, naming EN 1992-2 §7.2 concrete and EN 1993-2 §7.3 steel, normal stress σx at fibres, across elements × positions × combinations. The two modes (combinations vs. stages) and the stress_profile relationship make it distinguishable from siblings.

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 explains the two source modes and the opt-in limits model, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over stress_profile or other sibling checks. Usage is implied rather than routed with alternatives or exclusions.

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