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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations, the description discloses that it is read-only, that it reads with a few batched /post/TABLE requests, and that the stage parameter changes what stage-specific results (such as Summation) are included. It also explains what the plugin returns for each element and the model-level combinations, which is useful operational context beyond the structured 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 description front-loads the core purpose and packs a lot of useful details into a few sentences, ending with a clear usage recommendation. It is dense and slightly long due to parenthetical enumerations, but every sentence contributes directly to understanding what is returned and when to call it.

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 read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it describes the shape of the returned data (section, material, length, load cases, stages, combinations) and explains the stage-dependent behavior. Combined with annotations that already declare read-only and closed-world behavior, the definition is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The description adds only light semantic context, such as "chosen beam elements" and noting that the stage parameter makes the tool include that stage's results, but it does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it reads exactly what the Stress Profile Generator can show for chosen beam elements, and it enumerates the returned content (section data, material, length, load cases, stages, combinations). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stress_profile or sls_stress_check, which are downstream consumers.

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 explicitly states when to use it: "Use it before stress_profile or sls_stress_check." That names the alternatives and the ordering condition, leaving no ambiguity about why an agent would choose this discovery tool over the actual stress-profile or SLS check tools.

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