beam_deflection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the three computed outputs and the underlying theory, which implies linear-elastic limits. It does not state the assumed beam support condition, the units of the returned values, or the validity range of the closed-form solution — significant omissions for an engineering calculator where those assumptions determine correctness.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the computation and enumerates the outputs; there is no filler or restatement.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does list the three return values, which covers most of the gap. Still missing are the output units and the assumed support/loading configuration needed to trust the result, which matters for a formula-based tool.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented with units and examples (e.g. '200 for structural steel'). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 calculation ('Euler-Bernoulli elastic beam maximum center deflection') plus the two derived outputs (L/d ratio, maximum bending moment). Combined with the parameter names this leaves no ambiguity about what the tool computes, and the siblings are unrelated domains so no differentiation is needed.

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?

Naming 'Euler-Bernoulli' and 'elastic' implicitly bounds the tool to linear-elastic, small-deflection analysis, which is mild applicability guidance. However, there is no statement of which boundary condition/load case the formula assumes (simply supported vs. cantilever) or when an agent should prefer a different approach, so usage must be inferred.

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