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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the computed outputs and adds the important limitation 'Indicative, not a stamped design,' signaling that results are advisory rather than certifying. It does not detail assumptions or defaults, but the key behavioral caveat is present.

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 compact and well structured: two sentences, no filler, with the tool's purpose, scope, outputs, and limitation all clearly stated. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

The description usefully names all key outputs despite the absence of an output schema. However, for a 9-parameter tool with material-specific branches and no annotations, it omits branch-specific prerequisites and conditional parameter relationships, leaving an agent potentially able to call the tool with only the three required fields and receive an error or invalid result.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the steel/RC branch context but does not explain branch-specific dependencies, such as requiring a steel section and buckling curve for steel or depth/width/reinforcement for concrete.

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 'Eurocode axial column buckling check' and explicitly names both relevant codes (steel EC3 6.3.1 and RC EC2 5.8), making the resource and action unambiguous. It also lists concrete return values, and the axial column focus clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as eurocode_beam_designer.

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?

The description gives clear context for what the tool covers—axial column buckling for steel or RC under Eurocode—but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling eurocode_beam_designer exists, but no explicit routing or exclusion guidance is provided.

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