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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds only the shape of results (designation, standard, dimensions, kg/m), which the output schema already carries, and says nothing about pagination, limit defaults, or empty-result behaviour. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but adds little.

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 purpose, then category examples, then keyword behaviour, then return fields. The bilingual Chinese/English duplication roughly doubles the length for the same content, which is justified for a GB-standard domain but is still redundancy.

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 low-complexity search tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema documentation, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. The one gap is routing guidance against section_lookup and section_categories, which sibling selection would benefit from.

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%, so all three parameters (limit, query, category) are already documented in the schema, including the same 'HN400' / '200×200' examples the description repeats. The description's category examples add a slightly broader list of valid category strings, but otherwise duplicates structured data — baseline 3.

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 verb and resource — search GB (国标) steel sections by category or keyword — and enumerates what comes back (designation, standard, dimensions, kg/m). It is easy to tell apart from section_categories or the welded-section tools by function, but it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling such as section_lookup, so it stops short of the top band.

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 concrete usage context: category for classification browsing (HN / 工字钢 / 槽钢 / 等边角钢 …) and query for designation fragments like 'HN400' or '200×200', which tells the agent which parameter fits which intent. However there is no when-not guidance or explicit pointer to section_lookup/section_categories as alternatives for exact-match or enumeration cases.

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