plasticity_static_fem_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/no-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: results are diagnostic and 'never establish strength, convergence or print approval', reports are immutable and never auto-refreshed, and stale binding/conflicting coupon records are explained. This is rich, non-obvious context.

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 read action, but the middle sentences are dense domain jargon detailing per-report-type returns. Given there is no output schema this detail is defensible, yet it reads as more than the selection decision requires.

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?

With no output schema, describing what is returned for isotropic, orthotropic and Tsai-Wu cases is necessary and present, as are staleness and immutability semantics. The only real gap is any explanation of the reportId parameter.

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?

The single reportId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for it. It only frames the id implicitly through 'a persisted ... report', leaving the agent to infer semantics from the pattern alone.

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 ('Read a persisted linear-static FEA report') plus the secondary action (checking CAD binding / coupon record match). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like plasticity_analyze_static_fem (which runs an analysis) and plasticity_cohesive_fem_report.

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?

Explicitly routes one case elsewhere: 'Use cohesive-interface analysis with measured interface tests for that' when delamination prediction is needed, and states when the fixed-frame screen is unavailable. It lacks guidance on when to read an existing report vs. run a new analysis, but the read-only framing implies it.

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