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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the record contains — sourced numbers plus their conditions, method and source location — which tells the agent this is provenance-carrying data, not bare values.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core record contents are front-loaded and the narrowing option is placed last as a secondary note. Slightly list-heavy but every item earns its place.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so adequately by naming the record's sections. It stops short of explaining how 'include_facts' interacts with 'topic'/'property' filtering or what an empty result looks like.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the example id and the topic enum. The description adds modest framing by treating 'property' and 'fact topic' as two separate narrowing axes, but no syntax or interplay detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource ('the sourced record of one material') and enumerates the content it returns (sourced numbers with conditions, method, source location, uses, hazards, failure modes, corrosion, supply). Retrieval-vs-search is distinguishable from siblings like search_materials/find_materials, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.

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 rather than stated: the id is 'from search_materials' and the record can optionally be narrowed. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-another-tool guidance (e.g., when to use get_material vs compare or list_claims for the same facts).

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