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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real substance: it discloses that results are cautious guidance with cited sources and explicitly disclaims certification of safety or exact machine compatibility — a meaningful caveat the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The middle sentence about unknown material could be placed even earlier since it is the highest-value operational rule, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-enum, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers enough: what comes back (guidance plus sources), the safety caveat, and the unknown-material stop condition. It does not sketch the shape of the returned guidance or how sources are presented, which would help further, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 0%, but both parameters are fully enumerated and largely self-describing (cut/mark, wood/leather/etc.). The description contributes the one genuinely non-obvious semantic — that material='unknown' should halt the workflow — but says nothing about how task interacts with material or how results differ per combination.

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 verb ('Return') plus the resource ('source-level laser/material/task guidance and sources') make it clear this is a lookup, not a calculator, which implicitly separates it from siblings like calculate_laser_setup or compare_machines. The wording is somewhat jargon-heavy ('cautious source-level'), but an agent can still tell what it retrieves.

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?

One usage rule is explicit: 'Unknown material means stop,' which tells the agent what to do for the 'unknown' enum value. However, nothing explains when to prefer this over calculate_laser_setup or the other material/machine siblings, so the routing between tools is left to inference.

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