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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are ids intended for get_material, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose match semantics (prefix vs substring, ranking, ranking fallback when no matches) or pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional filter and the hand-off note. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a small read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what searchable fields exist, the optional filter, and where the returned ids lead. The main omission is any statement of matching behavior or how to distinguish it from find_materials.

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 three parameters are already documented with examples and bounds. The description's examples for category ('polymers, metals, energy') echo the schema, and its mention of searchable fields adds little beyond the query parameter's own description. Baseline 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 verb and resource ('Find materials') with the searchable fields named (name, abbreviation, formula) and the optional category filter. It distinguishes the tool's purpose, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling find_materials, whose name suggests overlapping functionality.

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 implies this is a discovery tool and hints at a follow-up path ('Returns ids to use with get_material'), which is mild usage guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and says nothing about find_materials, the sibling most likely to be confused with it.

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