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 covered. The description usefully scopes the computation to uniform distributed loads (implying other load cases are out of scope), but adds nothing about limitations, edge cases, or assumptions beyond that.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the core computation stated first. The trailing list_bundles cross-reference is mildly tangential for this specific tool, but it is short and does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 stateless, read-only calculator with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool computes and what it returns, so return values need not be re-explained. The one real gap is the unit asymmetry between the input (kg/m) and the returned load_kN_per_m, which the agent must 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (span_m, load_kg_per_m, beam_type enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail and notably omits that beam_type supports 'simply_supported' vs 'cantilever', which materially changes the results; baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Calculate') plus the exact quantities and resource ('max bending moment and shear for a beam under uniform distributed load'). No sibling tool computes beam loads, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the long list of other calculators.

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 only routing hint is 'See list_bundles for related construction calculators', which is a navigation pointer rather than a when-to-use statement. There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion (e.g., point loads or other load types not supported).

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