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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world reads, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the returned payload (notes, bottles with recent stock movements, formulas referencing the material) — especially useful since no output schema exists — though it says nothing about permissions or missing-material behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by the payload contents. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value context, and it covers the main components (notes, stock movements, dependent formulas). It is adequate for a simple one-param read tool, with only minor gaps such as error/absence 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% and the single 'material' param is fully documented in the schema (name, CAS, or id from list_shelf). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, 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?

The description identifies the specific resource (one material the user owns) and enumerates its content: notes, bottles with recent stock movements, and formulas using it. The phrase 'they own' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling get_material, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts scopes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use this when the user asks about one material they own' is an explicit trigger condition that an agent can route on. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. list_shelf for browsing, get_material for catalog lookups) and gives no exclusions, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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