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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool is a per-project-type lookup and that the result consists of reusable IDs for estimate fields.

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?

The description is two well-organized sentences. The first states the core purpose with useful examples; the second gives essential downstream guidance. No redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter lookup with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, identifies the relevant input domain, and explains how to use the output. It is slightly incomplete in not differentiating itself from the sibling get_material_catalog, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with an enum and a description for projectType, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of what each category might contain and clarifying that returned IDs are meant to be used in get_estimate, which is not in 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get available material choices for a project type') and lists concrete examples like flooring types, paint grades, and ADA modifications. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic material catalog and ties it to project types.

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 gives clear downstream usage guidance: 'Use the returned IDs in the project fields of get_estimate.' This tells the agent what to do with the result. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the sibling get_material_catalog or when not to use it.

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