diana_results_table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: default truncation at max_rows=30, digits default 6 with 0 meaning full double precision, and csv_path writing every row to disk via exportResults (a side effect worth flagging on a read-flagged tool). It does not say whether a truncated response is marked as truncated, nor what happens when block is ambiguous.

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 one-line summary followed by a scoping paragraph and a compact Args list, which is the right shape for 15 parameters. Minor redundancy: 'up to full double precision' in the opening is restated by the digits entry, and the read_tb contrast is repeated implicitly.

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 described, and the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, truncation, and export. The remaining gap is behavioral on truncation: it never states whether the response signals that rows were cut off at max_rows, which matters for a tool defaulting to 30 rows.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does: every argument is explained, including defaults ('default all' for components/cases), conditional requirements ('block ... needed only when there are several'), example values ('Displacements', ['DtY']), and the meaning of digits=0. This adds substantial meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 resource and scope: result values from DianaIE's resultsTable at up to full double precision, tied to what diana_load_results exposes. It explicitly names the sibling it complements (diana_read_tb) and the difference (solver .tb text output at 4 significant digits), so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Gives a prerequisite (works on what diana_load_results lists), names the alternative (diana_read_tb) with the condition that separates them, and adds operational guidance for large result sets: filter with nodes/elements/cases or use csv_path rather than raising max_rows. That is explicit when-to-use plus when-to-use-the-other.

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