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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the return entries contain (density, suitability, ids), which is useful, but says nothing about ordering or whether the list is exhaustive per technology.

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 what is returned and ending with the actionable linkage to estimate_price. Nothing superfluous.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the id contract. Complete enough for an agent to call it, though it omits whether the full list is returned when the filter is absent.

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 optional parameter is documented, so the schema carries the burden. The description's mention of FDM and SLA implies the filter dimension but adds no meaning beyond the enum.

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 the specific resource (printing materials) and its scope (FDM and SLA), plus the fields each entry carries (density, suitability). The purpose is unmistakable, though no explicit verb like "list" is used and differentiation from siblings is only indirect.

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?

"Returns the id that estimate_price expects" effectively tells the agent to call this before estimating a price, giving clear usage context. There are no exclusions or guidance on when not to call it, and no comparison to get_capabilities.

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