material_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states data comes from a curated database, implying a read-only operation, but lacks information about response format, range of properties, pagination, or any limitations. This minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral traits unstated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should elaborate on what mechanical properties are included and what qualifies as 'common engineering materials'. It does not, leaving an agent to infer these details, which is a notable gap for a complete understanding.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions for case-insensitivity and default value. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond the schema's coverage, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: looking up mechanical properties for common engineering materials. The verb 'look up' and the resource 'mechanical properties' are specific, and the context of a curated database distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like beam_bending and bolt_strength.

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 implies its use when material property data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The mention of 'curated database' hints at a read-only lookup but no direct guidance on selecting this tool over others is given.

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