etabs_get_concrete_design

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: the hard dependency on a prior run_design call and the unit convention ('Areas are in present units'), which an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences that front-load the resource and prerequisite before the output inventory; every clause (element types, result kinds, unit note) carries information and none is redundant padding.

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-format detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still supplies the prerequisite and unit convention. The only notable gap is pagination/limit behavior for a tool that can return up to 20000 rows, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is only 50% (limit and element lack descriptions), so the description has some compensating duty. It implicitly maps the element enum values by listing beam, column and joint outputs, and clarifies units, but says nothing about limit, names, or envelope semantics, so it only partially covers the gap. Baseline 3 for this coverage level is appropriate.

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 ('get concrete frame design results') and enumerates the payload: beam longitudinal/shear reinforcement, column PMM ratios and areas, joint shear, and capacity ratios. The 'concrete frame' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling wall/slab design getters, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 states the prerequisite that results are only available 'after etabs_run_design(kind='concrete')', which is the key usage condition. It does not, however, name alternatives such as etabs_get_design_summary or etabs_get_wall_design or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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