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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the returned values are IDs intended for get_estimate, but it does not describe output shape or any edge behavior; annotations carry most of the burden.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, examples are compact, and the usage instruction is included without redundancy.

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 a single parameter, full enum, an output schema present, and safety covered by annotations, the description fills the only real gap by explaining how the returned IDs should be consumed. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the enum fully lists project types, but the description adds semantic value by mapping example material categories to project types and clarifying that the output IDs feed get_estimate. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'project type to list materials for.'

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: 'Get available material choices for a project type.' It lists concrete examples (flooring types, paint grades, decking materials, kitchen/bath scope tiers, ADA modifications) and frames itself as a lookup feeding get_estimate, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_material_catalog.

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?

Provides clear context by saying 'Use the returned IDs in the project fields of get_estimate,' which tells an agent when and how to apply the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the downstream tie-in makes the intended use unambiguous.

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