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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it discloses the per-item return fields, the business-day unit for lead time, and the important empty-state condition when plates are not quoted online.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, the ordering relationship to quote_plate, and the empty-state caveat. Every clause carries information and the return-content summary is front-loaded.

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 carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does: material identity, each thickness with unit, stocked flag, and lead time in business days — plus the empty-result case. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'material id' and 'thickness_in' refers to quote_plate's inputs, not this tool's, so there is nothing further parameter-wise for it to document.

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 ('List the plate materials Steady Steel laser cuts') and enumerates what each entry contains: thicknesses in inches, stocked status, and lead time. It is clearly distinguishable from quote_plate and search_products, the latter being a general product search rather than a plate-material lookup.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule — 'Call it before quote_plate' — and notes that quote_plate consumes the material id and thickness_in exactly as listed here. It also flags the empty-result condition ('Empty while plate is not quoted online'). It stops short of naming alternative siblings or stating when not to use it, so it lands just below a full 5.

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