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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that price and cost fields are permission-gated by see_prices/see_costs, and that lines lacking a price or cost are excluded from totals but surfaced in unpriced_count/uncosted_count. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only operation or what include_removed does by default.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the conditional-visibility caveats. The semicolon construction packs a lot into a small space without becoming cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the price/cost gating is well covered. But an agent is still missing the meaning and default of include_removed, an explicit read-vs-write signal given zero annotations, and any routing guidance against the three sibling mutations.

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%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not: job_id and include_removed are never explained, and visit_id is only alluded to via '(or one visit)'. Worse, it introduces see_prices and see_costs as if they were inputs, but neither appears in the schema, so the agent gets no reliable guidance on the actual call surface.

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 resource and scope: materials recorded on a job, or narrowed to one visit, plus the totals computed over them. This distinguishes it from the write siblings (materials_add, materials_update, materials_remove) without naming them explicitly, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Listing a job's (or a visit's) materials is implied by the description, and the parenthetical '(or one visit)' hints that visit_id narrows the read. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion pointing to materials_add/update/remove, and no statement of prerequisites.

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