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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the return structure (name, category, price per kg, density, strength properties), which is useful. However, it omits ordering, empty-result behavior, and how limit interacts with a broad query.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second enumerates the return fields. Every clause 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?

Complete for a read-only search tool with three optional parameters and 100% schema coverage. Return fields are spelled out and the database scope is explicit. Remaining gaps (ordering, default behavior when query is omitted) are minor and do not block correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, query, and category are each documented in the schema with descriptions, defaults, and examples. The description adds LME-pricing context but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('the Costable materials database') with scope detail (37 materials, LME-sourced pricing). Because one sibling is literally search_processes, the materials-vs-processes distinction is immediate and clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_processes implies a materials-vs-processes split but is never named, and no conditions, exclusions, or complementary-tool hints are given. An agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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