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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that inputs are plate dimensions in millimetres, but says nothing about modelling assumptions (e.g. whether welds/fillets are ignored or how the section axes are oriented).

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?

Short and front-loaded, leading with the input dimensions and the computed result. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant but keeps the definition accessible without bloating 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the four required inputs are fully documented in the schema. Still missing are the engineering conventions that matter for a section-property calculator (axis orientation, weld treatment, thin-walled assumptions), which would help an agent trust and interpret the result.

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 each parameter already carries a Chinese label with units, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mapping of h/b/tw/tf to overall height/width, web and flange thickness adds a little cross-language clarity but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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+resource: computes welded box-section properties from four plate dimensions, and the name itself distinguishes it from the sibling section_welded_i. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with section_welded_i or the generic section_lookup/search tools, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as section_welded_i or section_lookup. The only implicit signal is that it consumes raw plate dimensions rather than a catalogue designation.

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