etabs_get_results

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds scope (which tables) but says nothing about pagination defaults, filtering behavior via 'where,' or the effect of limit/offset, which is the remaining behavioral gap. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the escape hatch to the sibling tool. The long enumeration of result categories is justified but slightly dense; otherwise no waste.

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 no explanation, and the core selection question (which tool / which result) is answered. Gaps remain around pagination and load-case vs load-combination semantics for a 7-parameter tool, but the essential call guidance is present.

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 43% and the description does not cover group, limit, offset, load_cases, or load_combinations behavior. It does help frame the 'result' parameter by enumerating the result categories, and the 'where' filter has its own schema example, so there is marginal added value, but the low coverage is not compensated.

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 ('Read analysis results') and enumerates the concrete result categories it covers (base reactions, story drifts, joint displacements/reactions, modal periods, element forces, piers/spandrels). It also names the differentiating sibling (etabs_get_table) so the agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 routes the agent: use this for the listed result tables, and 'For any other result table use etabs_get_table.' The when-to-use and the alternative are both stated directly with a clear selecting condition.

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