plasticity_strength_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the report is immutable, freshness is evaluated against live CAD identity only for bound reports, and current task/material inputs are optional. It still omits what a freshness verdict looks like or what happens on a stale report.

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?

One dense sentence with the verb front-loaded ('Read an immutable report') and the qualifiers trailing. No filler, though the sentence is packed tightly enough that the conditional clauses take a second read.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and an enormous nested input schema, the description leaves the agent without the return shape, the meaning of a freshness result, or the identity fields required for a bound report. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by characterizing the 'current' parameter as optional task/material inputs and clarifying that 'reportId' names an immutable report. However, it gives no format, structure, or constraint detail for either parameter.

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 verb+resource are present (read a report, evaluate freshness), but 'a report' is generic in a family that contains plasticity_static_fem_report, plasticity_section_strength_scan_report, plasticity_fastener_group_plate_bearing_report and plasticity_cohesive_fem_report. Nothing tells the agent which report types this tool handles or how it differs from those siblings.

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 guidance and no alternative named. 'For bound reports' hints at a conditional branch (live CAD identity) but not at what invokes it or what to do when the report is unbound. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the sibling list.

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