etabs_get_slab_design

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the description's job is lighter. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not in the annotations: results are returned 'worst first'. It does not describe how the limit/pagination interacts with that ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource, then the prerequisite, then the returned content. No filler and nothing buried.

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 not be documented here. The prerequisite, the two result branches, and the ordering are all covered; only the limit parameter is thin, which is minor given the output schema.

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 carry the parameters. It implicitly maps the two result categories to part='strips' vs part='punching' (enum values are never quoted), but 'limit' is completely unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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+resource (concrete slab design results) and enumerates the two result categories it returns: design-strip flexure/shear reinforcement and punching shear checks at columns. This clearly separates it from etabs_get_wall_design and etabs_get_concrete_design, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: results are available 'after etabs_run_design(kind="concrete_slab")', which tells the agent when the tool is valid. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over etabs_get_concrete_design or etabs_get_design_summary, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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