Beam Buckling

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

ReadOnlyHint covers safety, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it is closed-form with no solver, uses theoretical K factors, computes Euler above and Johnson below the transition slenderness, and returns a fidelity/band/valid_range screening package. It discloses the output contract including safety_factor and escalate_to.

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 description is front-loaded and information-dense, with the key no-solver screening identity first. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, with details like the transition point equality (σ_y/2) being mathematically interesting but not required for tool selection or invocation.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the return object, covers all parameter groups, states the mathematical model, and names the escalation path. An agent has enough context to call and interpret the result 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the section alternatives (width+height, diameter, or area+i_min), the material sources (youngs_gpa/yield_mpa or material DB), the end_condition enum values, and load_n's role in computing the safety factor. Every parameter is accounted for in context.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: an exact column-buckling screen using Euler + Johnson closed-form solutions, explicitly labeled 'NO solver.' It also distinguishes itself from fem_buckling with the beam_modal/fem_modal analogy, so an agent can tell it apart from the FEA sibling.

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?

It states the tool is a closed-form screen and explicitly escalates to fem_buckling for non-prismatic/eccentric/built-up cases, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The section/end-condition/material options further define the applicable domain.

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