Calculate steel theoretical weight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: units (mm dims, m length), output units (kg/m, kg, tonnes), the default carbon steel density 7.85, and the rule that omitting length returns only kg/m. It does not, however, discuss precision/rounding or failure behavior for invalid designations.

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?

The shape enumeration and unit conventions are front-loaded, which is good, but the same shape list appears in both the Chinese and English portions, producing redundant repetition. It is functional but not tight.

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?

With a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description only needs to supply units, defaults, and shape coverage, all of which it does. Given 7 parameters and a nested dims object, it is largely complete, with a minor gap around how dims keys map to each shape and any error behavior.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates the shape keys, units, and output-unit behavior but adds no parameter meaning the schema does not already carry, and it never explains the dims-key-per-shape mapping in more depth than the schema's own notes.

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 ('calculate theoretical weight' for steel shapes / GB sections) and enumerates all supported shape keys, so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes and its scope. It is clearly distinct from the sibling lookup/search tools (section_lookup, section_search, weight_materials) which retrieve data rather than compute weight.

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?

Usage is implied through the shape enumeration and unit conventions, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as section_lookup or weight_materials. An agent must infer that this is the computation tool while the siblings are lookup tools.

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